Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Anr vs Pradipta Kumar Satapathy on 11 January, 2024
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 2535 of 2023
State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Appellants
Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
Vs.
Pradipta Kumar Satapathy ..... Respondents
Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate along
with Ms. S. Gumansingh, Advocate
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
11.01.2024
I.A. No.7445 of 2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This application has been filed by the appellants for
condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the writ appeal.
3. Heard Mr. R.N.Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Pami Rath, learned
Senior Counsel along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
4. Considering the grounds taken in the application, delay of 75
days in filing the writ appeal is allowed.
5. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
3 Heard Mr. R.N.Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Pami Rath, learned
Senior Counsel along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. The State of Odisha and its functionary, being the appellants
have filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 23.06.2023
passed in WPC (OA) No.592 of 2017, by which learned Single Judge,
while quashing the office order dated 17.04.2017, directed opposite
party no.1 to extend the benefit of 3rd RACP in favour of the
respondent w.e.f. 01.01.2013, if he is otherwise eligible, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and on
such consideration, if it is found that the respondent was otherwise
eligible to get the benefit of 3rd RACP as on 01.01.2013, the financial
benefit as due and admissible shall also be released within the
aforesaid period.
3. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants contended that the respondent is not
entitled to get the benefit of 3rd RACP. It is contended that as per
record, the respondent has been rightly allowed 3rd RACP in the Pay
Band Rs.9300-34800+G.P. 4800, without fixation of pay (3%
incremental benefit) w.e.f. 01.01.2013. RACP Resolution dated
06.02.2013 provides benefit of pay fixation available at the time of
regular promotion which means the pay shall be raised by 3% of total
of pay in the Pay Band and the Grade pay drawn before such
upgradation. The employees of the cadre having promotional
hierarchy will get the Grade Pay of the promotional post. The
employees in isolated/ex-cadre posts not having any promotional
hierarchy will get the next higher Grade pay as per the first schedule
of ORSP Rules, 2008 with the interpolations, if any, introduced
subsequently and paragraph-18 of the aforesaid Resolution states that
Assured Career Progression (ACP) availed under OSRP Rules, 2008
shall not be taken into account while considering the RACPS in
favour of an employee. But no pay fixation shall be allowed by
extending the benefit of 3% of Basic Pay and Grade Pay to the
existing Pay but only the Grade Pay as applicable shall be allowed
while giving RACPS. Paragraph-11 of the finance Department
Resolution dated 16.12.2008 stipulates for grant of RACP. But, the
learned Single Judge, while passing the order impugned, has not
taken into consideration of the aforesaid facts. Therefore, the order
dated 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC (OA)
No.592 of 2017 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
4. Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. S.
Gumansingh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
contended that this question no more res integra in State of Odisha &
Ors. v. Bikash Ranjan Dash & Anr. (W.P.(C) No.18749 of 2018 and
batch, disposed of on 29.10.2021). In paragraph-34 of the said
judgment, this Court held as follows:
"34. Upon carefully examining the resolution dated 6th February
2013, it is seen the above upgradation effected in 2009 as a result
of restructuring of the cadre cannot be construed to be an
upgradation which would deny the benefit of the RACPS which in
any event was not in force at the relevant point in time. For the
same reason, the TBA granted earlier in 2005 cannot be considered
to be as an upgradation which would deny the Opposite Parties the
benefit of the RACPS. In other words, merely because the employee
had availed a TBA or ACP prior to 2013, he cannot be denied to
the benefit of the RACPS. Unless a person has already got a
promotion within time period of 10, 20, 30 years in the manner
indicated, he cannot be denied the RACPS benefit.".
Therefore, it is contended that the learned Single Judge is well
justified in passing the order dated 23.06.2023 in WPC (OA) No.592
of 2017 which does not require interference of this Court at this stage.
5. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that in
W.P.(C) No.18749 of 2018, it is held that since the Resolution dated
06.02.2013 has been taken into consideration, restructuring of the
cadre cannot be construed to be an upgradation which would deny the
benefit of RACPS, which in any event was not in force at the relevant
point of time. The TBA granted earlier cannot be considered to be an
upgradation which would deny the respondent the benefit of the
RACPS. More specifically, it is stated that merely because the
employee had availed a TBA or ACP prior to 2013, he cannot be
denied the benefit of the RACPS. Unless a person gets a promotion
within time period of 10, 20 and 30 years, he cannot be denied the
RACPS benefit. If this principle is adhrered to, the respondent is
entitled to get the benefit, as claimed in the writ petition. Therefore,
learned Single Judge has not committed any error in the order dated
23.06.2023 passed in WPC (OA) No.592 of 2017 so as to cause
interference of this Court at this stage
6. In the above view of the matter, this writ appeal merits no
consideration, which is accordingly dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUDGE
Alok (M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Designation: A.R-cum-Sr. Secretary
