[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bharat Chandra Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 17 April, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31956 of 2022
Bharat Chandra Sahoo
.... Petitioner
Mr. R.K. Patnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.04.2024
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Pursuant to the order dtd.25.03.2026, learned Addl.
Government Advocate produced the instruction so
provided by the Department. The same be kept in record.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dtd.23.08.2022 so also order
dtd.24.02.2022 so issued by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2
respectively under Annexure-8. Vide the said order
without taking a final decision, claim of the Petitioner to
get the benefit of RACP was simply disposed of.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that, benefit of RACP when was not extended,
Petitioner approached the Tribunal in W.P.(C)(OAC)
// 2 //
No.1209 of 2017. The said application after being
transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order
dtd.02.12.2021 with a direction on the Opposite Party
No.1 therein to consider the claim of the Petitioner.
5.1. On the face of such order passed under Annexure-2,
when the claim was not considered, Petitioner filed
CONTC No.1982 of 2022. The Contempt application was
disposed of vide order dtd.30.06.2022 and by allowing
further two months' time for compliance. However, in the
meantime vide order dtd.24.02.2022, Opposite Party No.2
on the ground that the matter has been referred to the
Department-Opposite Party No.1 for consideration of the
Petitioner's claim, the claim was disposed of.
Subsequently, Opposite Party No.1 vide order
dtd.23.08.2022 disposed of the claim of the Petitioner, on
the ground that Finance Department approval, so sought
for, since is pending, no decision can be taken.
5.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing
reliance on the circular issued by the Finance
Department recently on 11.02.2026 (copy of which was
produced in Court) contended that Finance Department
vide the aforesaid communication has held that
appointing authority is competent to sanction benefit of
RACP.
5.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid communication
dtd.11.02.2026, learned counsel appearing for the
// 3 //
Petitioner contended that since the appointing authority
is competent to sanction the benefit of RACP, on the
ground of pending approval of the Finance Department,
since claim of the Petitioner was disposed of vide order
dtd.23.08.2022 under Annexure-1 of Opposite Party No.1
and vide order dtd.24.02.2022 of Opposite Party No.2
under Annexure-8, both the orders are no more
sustainable in the eye of law.
5.4. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the
orders passed on 24.02.2022 and 23.08.2022 under
Annexure-8, the matter be remitted to Opposite Party
No.2 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner's claim,
taking into account the stipulation contained in the
communication issued by the Finance Department on
11.02.2026.
6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on
the other hand contended that, pursuant to the earlier
order passed by this Court on 02.12.2021, claim of the
Petitioner was referred to the Government-Opposite Party
No.1 for consideration vide order dtd.24.02.2022 under
Annexure-8. As Finance Department never gave the
approval to extend the benefit, claim of the Petitioner was
disposed of vide order dtd.23.08.2022. Accordingly, no
illegality or irregularity can be found in order
dtd.23.08.2022 of Opposite No.1 as well as the order
dtd.24.02.2022 of Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-8.
// 4 //
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court
finds that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of
RACP pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court
on 02.12.2021 in WPC(OAC) No.1209 of 2017, was
disposed of by Opposite Party No.2 vide order
dtd.24.02.2022, with the plea that Petitioner's claim has
been referred to the Government-Opposite Party No.1.
7.1. However, it is found from order dtd.23.08.2022 so
passed by Opposite Party No.1, such claim was disposed
of by Opposite Party No.1, on the ground that pending
approval of the Finance Department no final decision can
be taken.
7.2. In view of the clarification issued by the Finance
Department in its letter dtd.11.03.2026, this Court is of
the view that the ground on which Petitioner's claim was
disposed of by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 1 vide order
dtd.24.02.2022 and 23.08.2022 under Annexure-8, is no
more sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing both
the orders, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party
No.2 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner's claim in
the light of the clarification issued by the Finance
Department on 11.02.2026 within a period of two (2)
months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is
permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the
// 5 //
letter issued by the Finance Department on 11.02.2026
before Opposite Party No.2 for compliance.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Subrat Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
