Orissa High Court
Sri Thana Sundar Meher vs State Of Odisha & Others .... ... on 17 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.24136 OF 2025
Sri Thana Sundar Meher .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp.Parties
Mr. S. B. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
Order No. 17.09.2025
01.
Heard learned counsel-Mr. Sahoo appearing for Petitioner
and learned AGA-Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Opposite Parties.
2. The prayer of the Petitioner is innocuous and the subject
matter of the writ Petition is substantially similar to one in W.P.(C)
No.4847 of 2025 between Jayaram Pradhan v. State of Odisha
disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.02.2025.
3. Paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the Coordinate Bench decision read
as under:
"5. It is also contended that similar issue was before
this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.20713 of 2016 and 22554 of
2017 and this Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2023
while disposing the matter held that such a stipulation is
not permissible. The view expressed by this Court in
Para-11 & 12 of the judgment is quoted hereunder.
"11. A bare reading of the afore quoted
observations of the Apex Court would make it clear that
if the case relates to re-fixation of pay and such like
benefits may be granted in spite of delay as it does not
affect the rights of third parties. There is no dispute that
the benefit in question being basically re-fixation of pay
in terms of the GIA Order, 1994 is in the nature of an
individual benefit granted to an eligible employee on
fulfillment of certain conditions and as such, does not
apply to all employee at large. A co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Swarnalata Sahoo v. State of
Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No. 19445/2016) analyzed
vide ratio decided in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra)
and held that there was no justification on the part of
the opposite parties in issuing the impugned orders in
supersession of the earlier orders purportedly in terms
of the judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra). This Court is
therefore of the considered view that the ratio of Tarsem
Singh (supra) has been wrongly applied to the case of
the petitioner for which the impugned order is rendered
unsustainable in the eye of law.
12. Thus, on a conspectus of the analysis of facts
and law involved in the case and the discussion made
hereinbefore, this Court finds that the petitioners have
made out a good case for interference. Resultantly, the
Writ Petitions succeed and are therefore, allowed. The
impugned order under Annexure 5 is hereby quashed.
The opposite party-authorities are directed to extend the
benefits to the petitioners as granted by order dated 14th
May, 2015 under Annexure-4 within a period of three
months."
6. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the issue
decided by this Court in the above noted cases.
7. Having heard learned counsels for the Parties and
placing reliance on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20713
of 2016, which has been confirmed in W.A. No.3221 of
2023 and SLP(C) Diary No.18952 of 2024 and on being
satisfied that the issue involved in the writ petition is
similar to the issue decided, this Court while disposing
the Writ Petition directs that the Petitioner will be
entitled to get the benefit of the arrear claim from the
date of his entitlement as indicated in his order of
approval so issued by the Government in the present
writ petition. Such entitlement of the Petitioner as due
and admissible be released with due calculation within
a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of
this order."
In view of the above, Petitioner being similarly
circumstanced, the writ petition is disposed off in the same terms
and condition of the Coordinate Bench decision mutatis-mutandis.
All contentions are kept open.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Madhusmita
Designation: Asst-Register-cum-Senior Secretary
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 17-Sep-2025 18:08:56
