Orissa High Court
Binod Chandra vs The State Of Odisha & .... Opposite ... on 6 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.21044 of 2025
Binod Chandra .... Petitioner
Choudhury
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Amit Kumar Saa, Advocate
-versus-
The State of Odisha & .... Opposite Parties
others Represented by Adv.-
Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
06.08.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel-Mr. Saa appearing for Petitioner and learned
AGA-Mr. Behura appearing for the Opposite Parties.
2. The prayer of the Petitioner is innocuous and the subject matter of the
writ Petition is substantially similar to one in W.P.(C) No.4847 of 2025
between Jayaram Pradhan v. State of Odisha disposed of by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court on 18.02.2025.
3. Paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the Coordinate Bench decision read as under:
"5. It is also contended that similar issue was before this Court in
W.P.(C) Nos.20713 of 2016 and 22554 of 2017 and this Court vide
judgment dated 14.03.2023 while disposing the matter held that
such a stipulation is not permissible. The view expressed by this
Court in Para-11 & 12 of the judgment is quoted hereunder.
"11. A bare reading of the afore quoted observations of the
Apex Court would make it clear that if the case relates to re-fixation
of pay and such like benefits may be granted in spite of delay as it
does not affect the rights of third parties. There is no dispute that
the benefit in question being basically re-fixation of pay in terms of
the GIA Order, 1994 is in the nature of an individual benefit
granted to an eligible employee on fulfillment of certain conditions
and as such, does not apply to all employee at large. A co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Swarnalata Sahoo v. State of
Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No. 19445/2016) analyzed vide ratio
decided in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) and held that there was
no justification on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the
impugned orders in supersession of the earlier orders purportedly
in terms of the judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra). This Court is
therefore of the considered view that the ratio of Tarsem Singh
(supra) has been wrongly applied to the case of the petitioner for
which the impugned order is rendered unsustainable in the eye of
law.
12. Thus, on a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law
involved in the case and the discussion made hereinbefore, this
Court finds that the petitioners have made out a good case for
interference. Resultantly, the Writ Petitions succeed and are
therefore, allowed. The impugned order under Annexure 5 is hereby
quashed. The opposite party-authorities are directed to extend the
benefits to the petitioners as granted by order dated 14th May, 2015
under Annexure-4 within a period of three months."
6. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the issue decided by this
Court in the above noted cases.
7. Having heard learned counsels for the Parties and placing
reliance on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20713 of 2016, which has
been confirmed in W.A. No.3221 of 2023 and SLP(C) Diary
No.18952 of 2024 and on being satisfied that the issue involved in
the writ petition is similar to the issue decided, this Court while
disposing the Writ Petition directs that the Petitioner will be entitled
to get the benefit of the arrear claim from the date of his entitlement
as indicated in his order of approval so issued by the Government
in the present writ petition. Such entitlement of the Petitioner as due
and admissible be released with due calculation within a period of
four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order."
In view of the above, Petitioner being similarly circumstanced, the writ
petition is disposed of in the same terms and condition of the Coordinate
Bench decision mutatis-mutandis. All contentions are kept open.
Now, no costs.
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 07-Aug-2025 15:37:26
Judge
Prasant
