Orissa High Court
) Dharmendra Kar vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 24 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7493 of 2025
1) Dharmendra Kar ..... Petitioners
2) Rabindra Kumar Pattanayak Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Prasanta Kumar
Mishra
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Santosh Kumar
Brahma, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.04.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition
as well the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners
with the following prayers:-
"It is prayed, therefore that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to;
i) Admit and allow the writ petition and;
ii) Quash the impugned order vide No.
13680 dated 09.08.2023 under Aimexure-17
and;
iii) Further be pleased to direct the Opp.
Parties to step up/equalize the pay of the
petitioners at par with his junior Sri Guru
Charan Patra and disburse the arrears of
salary within a stipulated period of time;
iv) And pass such other orders/ directions
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case and bona-fide interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset,
contended that being aggrieved by order dated 09.08.2023 of the
Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-17 to the writ petition, the
Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition. He further contended that under the impugned order
the claim of the Petitioners for stepping up of their pay has been
rejected. However, while rejecting the claim of the Petitioners
no reason whatsoever has been assigned. It further appears that
a junior to the Petitioners, namely, Sri Guru Charan Patra has
been extended with the benefit of stepping up of pay.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners assails the impugned
order dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 to the writ petition
on grounds that the order of rejection does not indicate any
reason as to why the prayer of the Petitioners has been regretted
by the Finance Department and no such reason has been
communicated to the Petitioners. He further contended that the
impugned rejection order is contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh
Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and
Others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners specifically referred to the paragraph-17 of the
judgment in Gurucharan Singh Grewal's case (supra), which is
quoted herein below:-
"17. Something may be said with regard to Mr.
Chhabra's submission about the difference in
increment in the scales in which Appellant 1 and
Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary
to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot
be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such
circumstances, even if there was a difference in the
incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant
1 and the scale given to Shri Shori, such anomaly
should not have been allowed to continue and
ought to have been rectified so that the pay of
Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that of Shri
Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of
Appellant 2."
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that the prayer of the Petitioners was duly considered
by the Opposite Party No.1. He further contended that since the
proposal for stepping up of pay of the Petitioners was regretted
by the Finance Department, the same has been communicated to
the Petitioners by the Opposite Party No.1. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite
Party No.1 has not committed any illegality while passing the
impugned order dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 to the
writ petition. Accordingly, he further contended that the preset
writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the factual
background of the present case, further keeping in view the
documents annexed to the writ petition as well as the grievance
of the Petitioners as involved in the present writ petition, this
Court, at the outset, observes that the impugned rejection order
dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 does not stand to any
reason as no reason whatsoever has been given while regretting
the proposal for stepping up of pay of the Petitioners. This
Court at this juncture would like to observe that the
administrative authorities while deciding the issue pertaining to
the employees are required to assign reasons.
8. Since this Court found that no reason has been assigned
while rejecting the claim of the Petitioners, the impugned order
dated 09.08.2023 under Annexure-17 is unsustainable in the eye
of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.08.2023
under Annexure-17 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is
remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case
of the Petitioners afresh by taking into consideration the above
noted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the fact
that the junior to the Petitioners, namely Sri Guru Charan Patra
has already been extended the benefits of stepping up of pay.
Accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 is directed to consider the
grievance of the Petitioners by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within a period of two months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order. The final
decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated
to the Petitioners within ten days thereafter.
9. It is further observes that in the event it is found that the
Petitioners stand in a similar footing with their junior, namely,
Sri Guru Charan Patra and the case of the Petitioners fall within
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gurucharan Singh Grewal's case (supra) and in the absence of
any legal impediment, then the Opposite Party No.1 shall do
well to extend the benefit of stepping up of pay to the Petitioners
at par with their junior Sri Guru Charan Patra, as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the
date of taking such decision.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ
petition is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
