Orissa High Court
Lakshmi Bauri vs State Of Orissa And Others Opposite ... on 27 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.24641 of 2024
Lakshmi Bauri ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Bijay Kumar Behera
-versus-
State Of Orissa and others Opposite Parties
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
27.01.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case it is therefore, prayed that this
Hon'ble court may kindly issue writ in the nature
of mandamus or any other writ applicable and
direct to the Opposite parties to fix the grade pay
of the petitioner amounting of Rs.4200/-, as per
clause-10 of the Govt. Resolution dated-
06.02.2013 under Annexure-1 series from the
date of competition of 30 years of service, and
the decision passed in State of Odisha Versus
Biharilal Barik decided by this Hon'ble Court, in
W.P.C No-2831/2016, disposed off on
27.06.2016, (Diary No (s). 20358/2017, as
deemed just and proper as deemed just and
proper.
And further direct to the Opp. parties to pay
the service and arrear benefits as per the fixation
of grade pay in pursuant to the resolution dated
06.02.2013 under Annexure-1 Series.
And pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as
may be deemed fit proper in the bonafide interest
of justice."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that although
the Petitioner has approached the authorities by filing of a
representation dated 23.07.2024 under Annexure-6 to the present writ
application for payment of enhanced RACP in terms of the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Biharilal
Barik decided by this Court in S.L.P. Diary No.20358 of 2017.
However, the authorities have not taken any decision on such
representation. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite
Parties, he has approached this Court by filing of the present writ
application.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on the
other hand submits that in the event any representation has been filed
and the same is pending before the competent authority, then he will
have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to
consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law.
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.2 to consider the representation of
the Petitioner under Annexure-6 within a period of eight weeks from
the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite
Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the
Petitioner under Annexure-6 by passing a speaking and reasoned
order in accordance with law and keeping in view the judgment of
Biharilal Barik's case (supra). The decision so taken by the Opposite
Party No.2 be also communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks
thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Page 3 of 3.
