Purna Chandra Pattnaik vs Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 6688 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P.(C) No. 6097 of 2017

 Purna Chandra pattnaik              ....                      Petitioner
                                      Mr. Banabihari Ray, Advocate

                         -versus-
 Director, Municipal          ....                          Opp. Parties
 Administration, Housing &
 Urban Department,
 Bhubaneswar and Others
                                                      Mr. G. Rout, ASC
                                                            (O.P. No. 1)
                                 Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate
                                                   (O.P. Nos. 2 & 3)

                     CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                        ORDER

Order No. 17.11.2022

17. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, so also learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1-State as well as learned Counsel for Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3.

3. The Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to direct Opposite Parties to pay all the arrears salary/dues of the Petitioner for the period from 01.11.1987 to 31.01.2011 in the post of Motor Mechanic-Cum-Supervisor with interest and to quash the Order dated 20.12.2016, as at Annexure-2, by which claim of the Petitioner for getting higher // 2 //

scale of pay in the Motor Mechanic-Cum-Supervisor was rejected on the ground that the same is devoid of merit.

4. Since the pleadings are complete in the present Writ Petition, during hearing of the matter on 15.09.2022, learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited Judgment of the apex Court in the case of The State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Dharam Pal reported in AIR 2017 SC 4438, Selvaraj Vs. Governor of Island, Port Blair and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 838, so also the Judgment passed by the coordinate Bench in the case of Nakula Naik Vs. Executive Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar, reported in 2017(I) OLR- 293 and submitted that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the said Judgments of the apex Court, so also Judgment passed by the coordinate Bench.

5. In view of such submission made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, so also in terms of the previous Order dated 07.09.2021, learned Counsel for contesting Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 sought for some time to examine the said Judgments.

6. Today, in course of hearing, learned Counsel for contesting Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 fairly conceded that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by

// 3 //

the said Judgment of the apex Court, so also Judgment of the coordinate Bench passed in case of Nakula Naik (supra).

7. In view of such submissions of the learned Counsel for the Parties, the impugned Order dated 20.12.2016, as at Annxure-2, is set aside. Opposite Parties are directed to pay the arrears salary/dues of the Petitioner for the period from 01.11.1987 to 31.01.2011 in the post of Motor Mechanic-Cum-Supervisor within a period of two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this Order.

8. Needless to mention here that if the arrear salary of the Petitioner is not paid within the stipulated time frame, it will carry 10% interest from the date the same became due till the date of actual payment.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

10. Urgent certified copy of this Order be granted on proper application.

(S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE

AKPradhan