Orissa High Court
Usarani Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Others on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.33364 of 2021
Usarani Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. L. Mohanty, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ... Opposite Parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
09.10.2023
Order No
6. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
challenging the order dt.25.02.2021 so passed by D.E.O,
Puri, under Annexure-7 wherein the claim of the Petitioner
for stepping up of her pay in terms of the order passed by
this Court on 16.11.2020 in W.P.(C ) No.27676 of 2020
was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Petitioner while continuing as a Sikshya Karmi, she was
regularized against the vacant post of Asst. Teacher (Level-
V) on 14.05.1998 and her pay was fixed in the scale of pay
of Rs.1080-1800/-. It is contended that basing on the
Resolution issued by the Finance Department on
06.02.2013 under Annexure-3 and while extending the
benefit of 1st RACP w.e.f 01.01.2013, pay of the Petitioner
was fixed at Rs.10,760/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- in
// 2 //
the pay band of Rs.5,200/- to 20,200/-. But persons
junior to Petitioner while being extended with similar
benefit, their pay was fixed at Rs.11,080/- in the same
pay band of Rs.5,200/- to Rs.20,200/- with Grade Pay of
Rs.2400/-. It is contended that since the Petitioner is
admittedly senior to Smt. Bishnu Priya Narendra and
Mamatanjali MIshra, her pay cannot be fixed at
Rs.10,760/- while fixing the pay of her juniors at
Rs.11,080/- in the same pay band with same Grade Pay.
In support of her aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohanty ,
learned counsel relied on a decision rendered in the case of
Purna Chandra Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and
Another, passed on 22.03.2022 in W.P.(C ) N0.11445 of
2011, reported in 2022 (I) OLR 917. This Court in
paragraph 9 of the said judgment has held as follows:
"9. It is of relevance to note, this fact was not
disputed by the Petitioner. In the rejoinder
affidavit filed before the tribunal, the Petitioner
had specifically mentioned that the State
opposite parties had allowed one Rama
Chandra Panda, OAS (I) Retd. To step up his
pay at par with his junior Md. A.A. Khan, who
was drawing higher pay from time to time in
the lower post/cadre vide Rev. Deptt. order
NO.40992/R dated 1.9.1990. Apart from that,
the Opposite Parties had also allowed a
number of OAS officers to step up pay at par
with their juniors, who were drawing higher
pay from time to time in lower post/cadre. A
list of such officers had also been annexed to
O.A. NO.133 of 2003 (Ramesh Chandra Mishra
Vrs. State of Orissa) as Annexure-25, which
had not been disputed by the State Opposite
Parties, who were also the opposite parties in
the said Original Application. But the tribunal
on erroneous appreciation of the fact and
referring to the Finance Department Resolution
dated 03.05.1985, as mentioned above, came
to a finding that the petitioner was unable to
produce any concrete case n which the pay of
senior was stepped up with reference to the
pay of the junior under similar circumstances.
Thereby, the stand taken by the petitioner in
his rejoinder affidavit has also not been
considered by the Tribunal, which amounts to
non-application of mind. The Tribunal reached
an erroneous finding in the order itself. Though
the tribunal relied upon the factual matrix as
// 3 //
delineated above, but observed that the
Petitioner has not fulfilled the condition
necessary for stepping up of the pay as laid
down in Finance Department Resolution dated
03.05.1985. The tribal has not appreciated the
fact in its proper perspective inasmuch as the
Finance Department Resolution dated
03.05.1985 is fully applicable to the petitioner
as both the petitioner and Shri Mohanty, who is
admittedly junior to the Petitioner, belong to the
same cadre of OAS Class-II and subsequently
promoted to OAS Class-I)(Jr.) and their
appointment is identical in the same cadre."
5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition was issued by
this Court on 16.11.2021 and time was allowed for filing of
the counter on 24.03.2023, 03.07.2023 and 24.07.2023,
but no counter affidavit was filed. This Court while taking
up the matter on 25.09.2023, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
fairly contended that the counter affidavit will be filed by
29.09.2023. Basing on such submission of the learned
Addl. Govt. Advocate, the matter was adjourned to today.
But, today when the matter was taken up, Mr. B.
Panigrahi learned State counsel again prayed for time to
file counter affidavit.
However, Mr. Panigrahi while supporting the
impugned order contended that since in consideration of
the direction issued by this Court in the earlier Writ
Petition, the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected with
passing of a reasoned order, it requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the materials available on record, it is
found that the pay of the Petitioner in terms of the Finance
Deptt. Resolution dt.6.02.2013 was fixed at Rs.10,760/- in
the pay band of Rs.5,200/- to 20,300/- with G.P. of
Rs.2400/-. But pay of the juniors to the Petitioner as
contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well
as admitted in the impugned order, was fixed at
// 4 //
Rs.11,080/- in the same pay band of Rs.5200/-20,200/-
with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-. Following the ratio in the
aforesaid case as cited (supra), this Court is of the view
that Petitioner admittedly being senior, her pay cannot be
fixed at Rs.10,760/- in the pay band of Rs.5,200- 20,200/-
with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- In view of the same, this
Court is inclined to quash the rejection of the Petitioner's
claim so made by Opp. Party No.3 vide order dt.25.02.2021
under Anexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court
directs Opp. Party No.3 to step up the pay of the Petitioner
to Rs.11,080/- in the pay band of Rs.5200-20,200/- with
Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-. The said exercise shall be
undertaken and completed by Opp. Party No.3 within a
period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of this
order. Consequent upon such fixation of pay, the
differential arrear salary of the Petitioner as due and
admissible shall also be released within the aforesaid time
period.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 10-Oct-2023 14:24:39
