Orissa High Court
Bipin Bihari Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 30 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.30017 of 2025
Bipin Bihari Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. R. Samal, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
Order No. 30.10.2025
01.
The petitioner has sensitively stated his entire case in an
appreciable way in the synopsis, which reads as under:-
"That petitioner, who retired as Reader (State Scale) in
History while working in a fully aided educational institution is
constrained to file this writ application challenging the inaction of
the State-Opp. Parties in not extending the benefit for placement in
Lecturer (Group-A) scale of pay, as well as Reader (State Scale)
retrospectively w.e.f.01.06.2002 and 01.06.2012 respectively i.e.
after completion of 08 years and 18 years of service from the date
of receipt of Grant-in-aid as per the law decided by this Hon'ble
Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das Vrs. State Of Odisha & Ors;
Reported in 2023 (II) ILR-Cut-1194, so also the similar judgment
passed in the case of Dolamani Meher and batch Vrs. State of
Odisha & Ors.(W.P.(C) No.4312 Of 2016 and batch disposed on
on06.07.2023), keeping in view provision proided under Rule-4(1)
of the Odisha Non-government aided college Lecturer's Placement
Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred as "2014 Rules") by modifying
the Govt. Notification dt. 17.04.2017 and 11.02.2019, in so far as it
relates to the present petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that
though this Hon'ble Court while adjudicating the similar issue in
the case of Chittaranjan Das and Dolamani Meher & batch
(supra) has already laid down the law which has been
implemented in the meantime and the petitioner who stand on the
same footing and also made several grievances before the
authorities with a request to extend the similar benefits as per the
aforesaid principle decided by this Hon'ble Court, but till date the
State-Opp.Parties are sitting tight over the matter without any
valid reason, for which the petitioner finding no other alternative,
except to approach this Hon'ble Court by filing the present writ
application. Hence this Writ Application."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the
Court to the representation dated 10.09.2024, a copy whereof avails
at Annexure-9, ventilating his grievance. He submits that there is a
constitutional mandate enacted in Article 350, which directs that
the Public Authorities have to consider the grievances aired by the
citizens in their representations and grant redressal in accordance
with the extant Rules. Further he says that this having not happened
inevitably, he is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court.
3. Learned ASC appearing for the official Opp. Parties
opposed the writ petition for some time and now, he submits that
he would instruct his client to look into the grievance of the
petitioner, as has been aired in the subject representation in
accordance with law and in a time-bound way and this Court keeps
open all contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable
with the same. I too cotton with it.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of.
Time for consideration and communication of result of such
consideration to the petitioner is three months. All contentions are
kept open. It is open to the petitioner to give a copy of the
representation afresh immediately.
It is open to Opp. Party No.1 to solicit any information or
document from the side of the petitioner, as are required for due
consideration of the subject representation; however in that guise,
delay shall not be brooked.
Now, no costs.
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Judge
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 31-Oct-2025 19:52:09
