[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Giri vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3115 of 2026
Ramesh Chandra Giri ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Dhaneswar Behera
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
05.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to;-
i) Admit the writ petition;
ii) Call for the records;
iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Opp. Parties
to grant RACP/MACP benefits to the petitioner's as
per the Finance Department resolution dated
06.02.2013 read with the judgment pronounced in
O.A. No. 1668/2017 disposed of on 09.10.2018,
W.P. (C) No. 6698/2020 disposed of on 13.03.2020
and SLP(C) No.15573/2020 disposed of on
04.01.2021 and the Director Secondary Education
letter dated 14.07.2022 by computing the entire
period of service rendered during the pre-taken over
period w.e.f. receiving of grant within a reasonable
time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble court.
iv) And/or pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think
fit and proper for the ends of Justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a
direction to the Opposite Parties to grant RACP/MACP benefits to
the Petitioner in terms of the Finance Department resolution dated
06.02.2013 and by following the decision of the State
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1668 of 2017 by the learned
O.A.T. which was confirmed by Division Bench of this Court in
State of Odisha v. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra W.P.(C) No.6698 of
2020 vide order dated 13.03.2020 and which was eventually
upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.15573 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that
in view of the settled principle of law, the Petitioner is entitled to
get the RACP/MACP benefits. However, he has not been extended
with such benefits. He further contended that the case of the
Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in Ashok
Kumar Mohapatra's case (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended
that the Petitioner has not approached the Competent Authority,
i.e. Opposite Party No.3, District Education Officer, Mayurbhanj,
for redressal of his grievance. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner should
approached the Opposite party No.3 for redressal of his grievance
and any direction by this Court to the Opposite Party No.3 to
consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law would
not be objected to by the counsel for the State.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts, further taking note of the fact that the issued
involved in the present writ application has already been
adjudicated and has attained finality in Ashok Kumar
Mohapatra's case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of
the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to
the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a
detailed representation within two weeks from today taking therein
all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the
case of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order,
strictly in accordance with law and taking note of the ratio laid
down in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra's case (supra) within eight
weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis/Suchitra
