Orissa High Court
Minakhi Tripathy vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.13366 of 2024
Minakhi Tripathy ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sangram Jena
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing
Counsel for the O.P. No.5-
A.G. (A&E), Odisha,
Bhubaneswar.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
26.03.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to
quash the order dated 23.04.2024 issued by Opposite Party No.1
under Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition. A further prayer has
been made for a direction to the Opposite Parties to allow Grade
Pay of Rs.2800/-, Rs.4200/- and Rs.4600/- on completion of 10,
20 and 30 years of service under the RACP scheme with pay
band attached to the promotional post of Draftsman in terms of
the judgment of this Court in State of Odisha and another vs.
Bihari Lal Barik and others (W.P.(C) No.2831 of 2016), which
was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to grant all
consequential benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that while passing the impugned rejection order, the Opposite
Parties have not taken into consideration the judgment of this
Court in Bihari Lal Barik's case (supra). As such, the Grade Pay
of the Petitioner has not been determined and fixed as per the
scale applicable to the Petitioner. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned
rejection order under Annexure-10 is unsustainable in law.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that the
Government of Odisha in Finance Department, has come up
with a fresh Resolution on 13th February, 2025 with regard to
fixation and disbursement of the RACP benefit to the
Government employees. In such view of the matter, learned
Additional Standing Counsel contended that in the event this
Court directs that the matter of the Petitioner requires
reconsideration, then the Opposite Parties shall reconsider the
same in terms of the aforesaid Resolution dated 13.02.2025. He
further contended that in the event this Court directs the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a fresh
representation, which shall be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law and in terms of the aforesaid resolution
dated 13.02.2025 within a stipulated period of time, he will have
no objection to the same.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the respective parties and further keeping in view the later
development that the Government of Odisha has come up with a
fresh Resolution dated 13.02.2025, this Court is of the view that
the matter requires reconsideration at the Government level.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 under
Annexure-10 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded
to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision keeping in view
the judgment in Biharilal Barik's case (supra) and the latest
Resolution dated 13.02.2025 within a period of eight weeks
from the date of communication of certified copy of this order.
Final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner
within 10 days from the date of taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
