Jagannath Sahoo vs Secy To Government Of Odisha In
2023 Latest Caselaw 4472 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.15900 of 2019

Jagannath Sahoo                         .....                                        Petitioner
                                                                   Mr.S.K.Swain, Advocate
                                        Vs.
Secy to Government of Odisha in         .....                                 Opposite Parties
Housing and urban Development
Deptt. & Ors.
                                                                Mr.M.R.Pradhan, Advocate

                         CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                                ORDER

26.04.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

05.

2. Mr.S.K.Swain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, so also Mr.G.N.Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Mr.M.R.Pradhan, learned Counsel on behalf of Mr.D.Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties are present.

3. As it ascertained from the order sheet, notice is yet to be issued to the contesting Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.17240 of 2012 praying therein to release the benefit of revision in pay scale as per Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008, shortly, herein after "Rules, 2008" notified on 24.12.2008, which was given effect to with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006.

4. Admittedly, the Petitioner was separated from his service w.e.f 12.01.2009 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) of the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 and was paid all the benefits in terms of the said scheme. However, he was aggrieved because of not paying him the benefits flowing out of the said scheme as per the ORSP Rules, 2008, which was notified on 24.12.2008 and was given retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. Hence, this Court, while disposing of W.P.(C). No.17240 of 2012, directed the authority concerned to release the differential amount in favour of the Petitioner within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of copy of the said order.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, because of non implementation of the said direction given in W.P.(C) No.17240 of 2012 his client has already initiated a Contempt Proceeding, which has been number as CONTC No.414 of 2016, which is on board.

6. Mr.M.R.Pradhan, learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties in CONTC is present and submits, a Review Petition, numbered as RVWPET 246 of 2017, has been filed for review of the judgment dated 24.07.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.17240 of 2012, which is still pending for consideration.

7. Admittedly, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.17240 of 2012, the Coordinate Bench simply directed for release of differential amount in favour of the Petitioner without any direction to pay interest on the differential amount.

8. In view of the said facts on record, since the prayer made in the Writ Petition is hit by the principle of constructive res-judicata, is not maintainable.

9. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of the Writ Petition. He files a Memo to the said effect.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

(S.K.MISHRA) JUDGE

Banita