[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Smruti Ranjan Bal vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 20 April, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35394 of 2023
Smruti Ranjan Bal .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.04.2026
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the record.
iii) Issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. parties more
particularly Opp.Party No 1 to show cause as to why the
impugned order of rejection dated 24.05.2023 passed
by the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure: 12 shall not
be quashed.
iv) And if the Opp. parties fails to show cause or show
insufficient cause, issue a or any writ in the nature of
certiorari other writ / writs, direction / directions by
// 2 //
quashing the impugned order of rejection dated
24.05.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1 under
Annexure: 12.
v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ/writs the direction/directions directing opposite
parties to extend the scale of pay at par with the pay
attached to the post of MPHS (M) in terms of the letter
dated 18.08.2014 under Annexure: 13 within a
reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court
and to extend all service and financial benefit to the
petitioner.
vi) And/or pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper for the ends of justice.
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
4. It is contended that claiming pay parity with that of
the employees continuing as MPHS (M), Petitioner was
before this Court in WPC (OAC) No.1386 of 2014. The
said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order
dtd.28.08.2022 under Annexure-11, with a direction on
the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision taking into
account the clarification issued by the Director of Health
Service -Opposite Party No.3 vide his letter
dtd.18.08.2014 under Annexure-13.
4.1. It is contended that on the face of such order passed
by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition and the
clarification issued by the Director of Health Services-
Opposite Party No.3 in his letter dtd.18.08.2014 and the
earlier clarification issued by the self-same authority on
23.05.2012 under Annexure-6, claim of the Petitioner was
// 3 //
rejected vide the impugned order dtd.24.05.2023 under
Annexure-12.
4.2. It is contended that Petitioner and similarly situated
persons working as Filaria / Malaria Inspector though
were allowed similar pay scale with that of MPHS(M) all
through, but basing on the demand made by the
association representing MPHS(M), their pay scale was
raised to Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- with grade pay of
Rs.4,200/- in terms of Finance Department Office
Memorandum dtd.27.06.2011, w.e.f. 31.03.2010
notionally and financial benefit w.e.f. 01.06.2011.
However, similar pay scale when was not extended, so
allowed in favour of MPHS (M), the matter was carried to
this Court and this Court directed for consideration of the
Petitioner's claim taking into account the clarification
issued by the Director under Annexure-13. But without
taking note of the said clarification and the earlier
clarification issued under Annexure-6, claim of the
Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order
dtd.24.05.2023 under Annexure-12.
4.3. It is contended that since till 31.03.2010, Petitioner
and similarly situated Filaria / Malaria Inspectors were
getting similar pay scale as that of MPHS(M), the ground
on which Petitioner's claim has been rejected while
extending the benefit in favour of MPHS (M), vide the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and
requires interference of this Court.
// 4 //
5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State on the other hand while supporting
the impugned order made his submission basing on the
stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite
Party No.1. Placing reliance on the stand taken in Para-
13 of the counter affidavit, it is contended that taking into
account the disparity of work involving Filaria / Malaria
Inspector to that of MPHS (M), and the job chart provided
for MPHS (M) vis-à-vis Filaria / Malaria Inspector, claim
of the Petitioner in terms of the earlier order was
considered and rejected vide the impugned order
dtd.24.05.2023 under Annexure-12. The stand taken in
Para-13 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
"13 That in reply to the averments made in Para-17 &
Para-18 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that,
the stand taken by the petitioner to equalize the scale of
pay of Falaria /Malaria Inspector to that of MPHS(M) as
per the Letter dated-18.08.2014 issued by the O.P. No. 3
i.e. Director, Health Services was taken up for
consideration by the O.P. No.1 and could not be
considered on the ground of disparity of work of Filaria
/Malaria Inspector to that of MPHS(M) as a final decision
making authority. The job chart of MPHW(Male) and
MPHS (Male) prescribed by the Govt. in Health & F.W.
Deptt. Vide Letter No. 22959 dt.12.08.2013. A copy of the
Job Chart dt.12.08.2013 is annexed herewith as
Annexure-F/1."
5.1. It is contended that since the nature of work of
Filaria / Malaria Inspector is different to that of MPHS
(M), their claim for pay parity w.e.f. 31.03.2010 has been
rightly rejected.
// 5 //
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court
finds that Petitioner and similarly situated Filaria /
Malaria Inspectors were getting similar pay scale till
31.03.2010. However, basing on Finance Department
Office Memorandum issued on 27.06.2011, pay scale of
MPHS (M) was raised to Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- with
grade pay of Rs.4,200/- w.e.f. 31.03.2010 notionally, and
financial benefits was extended w.e.f. 01.06.2011.
6.1. Claiming similar pay scale, Petitioner raised
grievance and ultimately approached this Court by filing
WPC(OAC) No.1386 of 2014. This Court vide the order
dtd.28.08.2022 though directed Opposite Party No.1 to
take a decision, taking into account the clarification
issued by the Director on 18.08.2014 under
Annexure-13, but as found from the impugned order, the
said clarification has not at all been taken note of by
Opposite Party No.1. Not only that since Petitioner and
similarly situated Filaria / Malaria Inspectors were
getting similar pay scale as that of MPHS (M) till
31.03.2010 which is not disputed, this Court is of the
view that the ground on which Petitioner's claim has been
rejected vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the
eye of law.
6.2. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis, this
Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.24.05.2023
under Annexure-12 remits the matter to Opposite Party
// 6 //
No.1 to take a fresh decision taking into account the fact
that Petitioner and similarly situated Filaria / Malaria
Inspectors were getting similar scale of pay till
31.03.2010 with that of MPHS (M). This Court further
directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision taking into
account the clarification issued by the Director- Opposite
Party No.3 on 18.08.2014 under Annexure-13 and so also
the earlier clarification issued on 23.05.2012 under
Annexure-6. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to
take a decision as directed within a period of six (6) weeks
from the date of receipt of this order with due
communication to the Petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
