Jaladhar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8437 Ori

Orissa High Court

Jaladhar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 18 September, 2025

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.26134 of 2025

            Jaladhar Pradhan                           ....               Petitioner
                                                     Mr. Atul Tripathy, Advocate
                                          -Versus-
            State of Odisha and others                 ....       Opposite Parties
                                                               Mr. J.K. Ray, ASC
             CORAM:
                           JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                                          ORDER

Order No.                                18.09.2025
   01.

The petition prayer No.1 reads as under:

"i) direct the opp.parties to forthwith revise the pay of the petitioner in his entitled scale of pay of Rs. 1080-1800/- w.e.f. 01.05.1989 with all consequential benefits and to revise his pension under ORSP Rules, 1989 in terms of the issue settled by this Hon'ble Court in judgment dt.l8.07.2019 passed in WP(C) No.12831/2017 in Annexure-6 and order dt.06.07.2020 of OP.No.l Annexures-7 with interest and cost;"

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of his client's making of value addition, namely, acquiring CT qualification, he was entitled to pay scale of Rs.1080-1800/- w.e.f. 01.05.1989 and that having not been taken into account, his pension has been fixed under the ORSP Rules, 1989 in the lesser pay scale and therefore, the mistake has to be rectified by the OPs. He also points out that the Division Bench decision in W.P.(C) No.12831 of 2017 decided on 18.07.2019 supports case of the petitioner and therefore, this Court should come to the aid of his client.

3. Learned ASC, on request, appearing for the OPs opposes the petition contending that ordinarily for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, a demand & rejection are a sine qua non and therefore, petition should not be entertained in the absence of such a demand.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if liberty is given the petitioner would make an appropriate & comprehensive representation to the jurisdictional OPs and he would be satisfied, if a direction is given to consider the same after it is made. This is fair and reasonable.

In the above circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation within two weeks and if one is made accordingly, the jurisdictional OP shall take a call thereon within eight (8) weeks next following, in accordance with law. In that connection, all contentions are kept open.

It is open to the answering opposite parties to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner, as required for taking a decision on the subject representation. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked.

Now, no costs.

Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

Signature Anisha Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Sep-2025 10:46:44