Hemanta Kumar Padhi vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 469 Ori

Orissa High Court

Hemanta Kumar Padhi vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 12 May, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            WP(C) No.13320 of 2025
            Hemanta Kumar Padhi          .....      Petitioner
                                                          Represented By Adv. -
                                                          Pravat Kumar Muduli

                                           -versus-
            State Of Odisha                       .....        Opposite Parties
                                                          Represented By Adv. -
                                                          Mr.J.K.Bal, AGA

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

12.05.2025

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 the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer :

In the facts and circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/Writs and/or Order/Orders, calling upon the Opp.Party to show cause as to why the Petitioner shall not be granted one annual increment on notional basis for the year 2019 i.e. from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 for the purpose of calculation of Pensionary benefits only, keeping in view the judgment dated 30.07.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.17715/2020 (Arun Kumar Biswal vs. State of Odisha & others);

And if the Opp.Party fails to show cause or shows false or insufficient cause, make the said Rule NISI absolute;

And pass such other order/orders, as this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner joined Odisha Administrative Service (OAS) as Deputy Collector on 30.07.1989. He further contended that the Petitioner was promoted to Indian Administrative Services (IAS) in the year 2015 and was assigned with the allotment of IAS of 2007 as per Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987. He further contended that while serving as the Director of Estate and ex-officio Additional Secretary to G.A. & P.G. Department, the Petitioner has superannuated from service with effect from 31.12.2019 as per the Notification under Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that although the Petitioner is entitled to the last increment, which fell due with effect from 01.01.2020, however the same has not been extended in favour of the Petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that although the Petitioner was superannuated from service with effect from 31.12.2019, however he is entitled to the increment which fell due with effect from 01.01.2020 strictly in terms of the judgment in the case of Arun Kumar Biswal vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.17715 of 2020 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.07.2021. Since the Petitioner has been deprived of last increment before his retirement, the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties,

however, no step has been taken by the Opposite Parties for grant of such increment in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on a careful examination of the pleadings in the Writ Petition, it appears that the grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to grant of last increment before his retirement. Learned Additional Government Advocate at this juncture contended that it appears that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties before approaching this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. He fairly contended that in the event this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Parties with a corresponding direction to Opposite Party No.1 to consider the same strictly in accordance with Government Notification and within a stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same.

7. On a careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, this Court observes that the grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is limited to the extent that the Petitioner has not been extended with the benefit of last increment which was applicable with effect from 01.01.2020. It appears that the Petitioner has retired from service on the day before the applicable date i.e. 31.12.2019. In the aforesaid context, this Court on an analysis by this court in the case of Arun Kumar Biswal vs. State of Odisha and others observed that the case of the Petitioner is almost identical to the case of the aforesaid Arun Kumar Biswal. The

operating portion of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"18. In view of the facts and law, so discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner, having rendered service from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 for a period of 12 months and his increment having due on 01.01.2020 and he having stood at par with P. Ayyamperrumal (supra), is entitled to get the notional increment for the year i.e. from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 for the purpose of pensionary benefits only. Accordingly, it is directed that the benefits admissible to the Petitioner be refixed taking into account the notional increment admissible to the Petitioner by 01.01.2020 and the same should be paid as early as possible by revising the pension as due, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of communication of this judgment. Consequentially, the order dated 14.07.2020 in Annexure-3 whereby the representations of the Petitioner have been rejected, is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed."

8. Since a view has already been taken by the coordinate Bench in an identical issue and as such judgment of the coordinate Bench has already been implemented by the Government, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition does not require any further adjudication. Therefore, it is a matter before the authorities to verify the case of the Petitioner and follow the ratio in Arun Kumar Biswal's case (supra) and this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Parties along with a certified copy of this order and a copy of the judgment delivered in Arun Kumar Biswal's case (supra) within two weeks from today. In such eventuality the Opposite Parties shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and in the event the Petitioner stands in similar footing with Arun Kumar

Biswal then the ratio decided by the coordinate Bench in Arun Kumar Biswal's case (supra) be made applicable to the case of the Petitioner. The relief as prayed for be also extended in favour of the Petitioner, if there are no other legal impediments.

9. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition is disposed of.

10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS

Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-May-2025 15:38:27