Orissa High Court
Parikhita Sethi vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 26 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.17144 of 2025
Parikhita Sethi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prabin Das
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
J.K. Bal, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
26.06.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Govt. 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:
"It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ
Petition, issue RULE NISI, calling upon the opposite
parties, to show cause as to (i) Why the Petitioner
shall not be granted the benefit of notional annual
increment for the service period from 01.02.2020 to
31.01.2021 for the purpose of calculating his
pension and gratuity; and the Finance Department
O.M. No. 2392/F dated 22.01.2025 under Annexure:
4 to the Writ Petition, shall not be quashed and upon
the Opposite Parties, failing to show sufficient cause
or showing insufficient cause, to make the said
RULE absolute; and consequently, direct the
Opposite Parties to;
(i) Grant the Petitioner the notional benefit
of the annual increment due on 01.02.2021
for the service period 01.02.2020 to
31.01.2021;
(ii) Recalculate the Petitioner's pension and
gratuity by factoring in this notional
increment, and
(iii) Release the arrears of pension and
gratuity resulting from such recalculation,
along with all consequential benefits and
interest at such rate as deemed fit by this
Hon'ble Court, forthwith; and
may also be pleased to pass any such further
order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner initially joined as a Junior Assistant in
Agriculture Department on 15.03.1991. While working as the
Desk Officer in the Home Department, the Petitioner has retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.
31.01.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
the Petitioner is entitled to one annual increment which falls due
on 01.02.2019 i.e. for the period from 01.02.2020 to 31.01.2021.
Although the increment has been sanctioned in respect of the
similarly situated employees, however, the Petitioner has been
deprived of such benefits. He further contended that the prayer of
the Petitioner for such increment has been arbitrarily rejected by
the Opposite Parties by virtue of Office Memorandum
22.01.2025 under Annexure-4.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to the
Office Memorandum 22.01.2025, contended that the Opposite
Parties have arbitrarily fixed a cut-off date to give effect to the
judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar Biswal vs. State of
Odisha & Anr. in W.P.(C) No.17715 of 2020, dated 30.01.2021.
He further stated that the Petitioner had earlier retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021.
Accordingly, the Petitioner has been excluded from receiving the
benefit of one increment for the period from 01.02.2020 to
31.01.2021, merely because she had retired before the cut-off
date. He further contended that in terms of the judgment in Arun
Kumar Biswal's case (supra), the Petitioner is entitled to get the
increment benefit.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no instruction in matter. However, on a
perusal of the impugned Office Memorandum dated 22.01.2025
under Annexure-4, it is clear that the Opposite Parties have not
committed an illegality in granting the benefit pursuant to the
judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar Biswal's case (supra) to
the Petitioner in that case. He further submitted that in fact the
State Govt. has taken a decision to extend such benefit to the
persons retrospectively w.e.f. 30.01.2021 i.e. from the date on
which the judgment of this Court was delivered in Arun Kumar
Biswal's case (supra). As such, learned Additional Govt.
Advocate argued that the fixation of the cut-off date i.e. from the
date of the judgment cannot be construed to be illegal and
arbitrary. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
State contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed an
illegality in fixing the cut-off date. He further submitted that so
far as the present petitioner is concerned, it appears that she has
not approached the Opposite Parties before approaching this
Court by filing the present writ application. As such, the learned
counsel for the State contended that the present writ application
is not maintainable.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of
the background facts, further taking into consideration the Office
Memorandum dated 22.01.2025 under Annexure-4, further
taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Arun
Kumar Biswal's case (supra) under Annexure-3 to the writ
application, this Court observes that the learned Coordinate
Bench, while allowing the writ petition in para-18, has
categorically directed that since the Petitioner had rendered
service from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 for a period of 12
months, he is entitled to the increment which had fallen due on
01.01.2020. Therefore, there is no doubt that such relief granted
in the case of Arun Kumar Biswal has been considered on the
basis of the entitlement of the Petitioner in that case. Keeping in
view the aforesaid legal position, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the present writ application by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a
detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with
all supporting documents, along with a certified copy of this
order within a period of three weeks from today. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the
representation of the Petitioner in the light of the decision
rendered by a learned Coordinate Bench in Arun Kumar Biswal's
case (supra). It is further clarified that the case of the Petitioner
shall be considered solely on the basis of the entitlement of the
Petitioner and on the basis of the ratio laid down in Arun Kumar
Biswal's case (supra). The representation of the Petitioner shall
be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a
period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a
certified copy of today's order. The final decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days from
the date of taking such a decision.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 26-Jun-2025 18:09:19
