Pradeep Kumar Mallick vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4779 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                W.P.(C) No.12488 of 2023
                 Pradeep Kumar Mallick                  ....          Petitioners
                                                         Mr.K.K.Rath, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 State of Odisha and another            ....       Opposite Parties
                                                             Mr.T.Patnaik, A.S.C..
                                         CORAM:

                           JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
                                           ORDER

Order No.                                 01.05.2023
    01.     1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
            /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

" It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the record, issue rule Nisi calling upon the Opp.Parties as to why the Petitioner shall not be granted the 2nd RCP @ 5400/- GP with 3% increment with effect from 01.01.2013 and 3rd RACP @ 6600/- GP with 3% increment w.e.f 20.04.2015 as per finance department resolution dated 01.01.2013 involving Rule 13(1) of ORSP Rue, 2008 in the light of judgment of State of Odisha v-Biharilal Barik in W.P.(C) No.2831/2016 vide order dated 27.06.2016.

Failing to show cause issue the writ of mandamus directing the Opp.Parties to grant the grade pay of rupees 5400/- with 3% increment as 2nd RCP with effect from 01.01.2013 and Rs.6600/- GP with 3% increment as 3rd RACP w.e.f. 20.04.2015 in the light of judgment of state of Odisha vrs.Biharilal Barik in W.P.(C) No.2831 of 2016.

And pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper."

// 2 //

4. In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has submitted representation before the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 within a stipulated period of time.

5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.1, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party no.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Biharilal Barik within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

RKS                                          ( A.K. Mohapatra )
                                                    Judge