14.05.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ petition as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
4. The present writ petition has been filed by the
Petitioner with the following prayers:-
"In view of the facts stated and
submissions made above, the Petitioner
most humbly pray that the Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in
the nature of writ of mandamus or any other
writ / writs, directing the Opp. parties to
extend the benefits of 2nd financial
upgradation i.e. grade pay of Rs.4600/-
w.e.f. 1.1.2013 in terms of the office order
no.36 dtd. 20.1.2022 being the fall out of the
order passed in the original applications
vide Annexure-2 Series (order dtd.
11.12.2018 in O.A. No.3019 / 2018 and O.A.
No. 3020 /2018) along with the interest and
further direction to revise the pensionary
benefits.
And may further Pass any other order
/orders, direction / directions as deemed fit
and proper."
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
contended that the Petitioner, who was working as a
Forester, has approached the Odisha Administrative
Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3019/2018 with a prayer for
grant of RACP benefits under the RACP Scheme, which
was introduced in the year 2013. He further contended
that the OAT, vide order dated 11.12.2018, allowed the
above noted O.A. and directed the respondents to grant
grade pay of Rs.4600/- towards 2nd RACP on completion
of 20 years of service w.e.f. 01.01.2013 in favour of the
applicants. However, the order passed by the Tribunal
has not been implemented by the State-Opposite Parties.
He further contended that the order passed in the O.A.
filed by the Petitioner has attained finality as no further
appeal is preferred against such order by the State-
Opposite Parties. He further contended that similarly
situated other persons also approached the OAT by filing
O.A. No.3020/2018. The Tribunal, vide order dated
11.12.2018, passed an identical order allowing the O.A.
and directed to pay 2nd RACP benefit to such persons,
namely, Jogindranath Senapati, Rabindra Kumar Patra,
Manikeswari Pattnaik and Birendra Kumar Pattnaik. In
compliance to the order passed by the Tribunal on
11.12.2018 in O.A. No.3020/2018, the State-Opposite
Parties have revised the grade pay in favour of the
applicants in O.A. No.3020/2018. In the aforesaid
context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the
Office Order dated 20.01.2022 under Annexure-3 to the
writ petition.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner further referring to the judgment of this Court
in Ramesh Chandra Deo v. State of Odisha & others
(W.P.(C) No.933 of 2021 and batch of similar other writ
petitions disposed of vide judgment dated 27.04.2023),
contended that this Court while adjudicating an identical
issue has held that the Petitioners in that writ petition are
entitled to the RACP benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that although he has received instruction,
however he needs some more time to file counter
affidavit. He further contended that on perusal of the writ
petition, it appears that the Petitioner has also filed a
representation before the Opposite Party No.3, i.e.
Divisional Forest Officer, Boudh(T) Division on
07.09.2022 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the State
contended that in the event this Court holds that the issue
has already been adjudicated in the above noted case, then
Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the
Petitioner in the light of law laid down by this Court in
the above noted judgment and he will have no objection
to the same.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as the documents annexed to the
writ petition, further taking into consideration the order
passed by the learned OAT as well as this Court in
Ramesh Chandra Deo's case (supra), this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of
admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach
the Opposite Party No.4 by filing a fresh representation
taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting
documents as well as judgments relied upon by the
Petitioner in support of his contention within three weeks
from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.4
shall keep in view the order of the Tribunal dated
11.12.2018 passed in O.A. No.3019 of 2018 as well as the
judgment of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Deo's case
(supra) and take a decision on the representation of the
Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order. In the
event it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to such
benefit as has been directed by the Tribunal vide order
dated 11.12.2018 passed in O.A. No.3019 of 2018, then
the Opposite Party No.4 shall do well to extend such
benefit within six weeks from the date of taking such
decision.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
writ petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
