[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bipin Bihar Tripathy vs State Of Orissa & Others .... Opposite ... on 6 February, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.30403 of 2011
Bipin Bihar Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Bahadur, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa & others .... Opposite Parties
Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC
Mr. M. Tripathy, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 06.02.2026
10. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner
challenging the impugned letter as at Annexure-12 by opposite
party No.2 dated 21st April, 2011 on the grounds stated with a
further direction that he is entitled to receive the financial
benefits on and from the date of his initial appointment as
Junior Assistant w.e.f. 6th June, 1983 with such other reliefs
sought for.
3. In course of hearing, Mr. Bahadur, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has delivered a judgment in Sri Haladhar Mishra and
another Vrs. State of Orissa and others in W.P.(C) No.22058
of 2011 decided on 3rd April, 2018 on the subject matter and it
squarely applies to the case of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the decision (supra) has already been taken
judicial notice of by this Court on 16th May, 2025. No counter
affidavit is filed and therefore, Mr. Bahadur. Learned counsel
for the petitioner would submit that the relief sought for by the
petitioner shall have to be considered in the light of the
decision in Sri Haladhar Mishra (supra).
4. Recorded the submission of learned counsel for
opposite party No.3.
5. Response of Mrs. S. Mohanty, learned ASC for the
State is noted down.
6. Opposite party No.3 has filed the counter affidavit,
which is, however, not available in the Court's record. A copy
of the said affidavit is produced by Mr. Tripathy, learned
counsel for opposite party No.3 and the same is gone through.
7. Considering the facts pleaded on record and
submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, the
Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner with
reference to the decision in Sri Haladhar Mishra (supra). For
better appreciation, the Court is further inclined to reproduce
the relevant extract of the judgment, which is as follow:
"8. This Court, after considering the argument
advanced on behalf of the petitioners, is of the
view that when there is a stipulation made in the
order dated 17.5.1999 to the effect that the
seniority from the date of initial appointment shall
be counted towards services, but there shall be no
financial benefits whatsoever the period of service
already rendered, the meaning the meaning of this
would be that whatever pay scale of Junior
Assistant was on the date of appointment of the
petitioners, they will get the corresponding pay
scale as on the date of taking them under regular
establishment i.e. 17.5.1999. The pay scale of the
petitioners is to be re-fixed taking the pay scale of
Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500/- and if the
contention of the State-opposite parties will be
taken as correct, then the decision taken by the
Housing & Urban Development Department in its
order dated 17.5.1999 to the effect that the past
services rendered by the categories of employees
shall be counted for the purpose of service would
be redundant as because if the pay scale would be
given on the basis of the pay scale on the date of
taking the petitioners under regular establishment,
it will be treated to be a fresh appointment and not
a regularization, as would be evident from order
dated 17.5.1999 that the services of the petitioners
were regularized in pursuant to the order passed by
the High Court, however, without any financial
benefits. This would mean that the petitioner will
not be entitled to any arrear of difference of salary
rather the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale
attached to the post is entitled to be given with
prospective effect by counting the period towards
seniority.
The petitioners are not claiming any arrear
of difference of salary as per the decision taken by
the authority in the order dated 17.5.1999 and as
such, it cannot be said that there is any deviation
with decision taken vide order dated 17.5.1999.
However, it is being gathered from communication
dated 4.5.2011 that the decision has been taken to
fix the pay scale afresh on the basis of Revised
Scale of Pay 2006 and 2008. It does support the
contention of the petitioners and as such, the said
decision taken by the authority not to give the pay
scale taking the past services rendered by them will
not be proper.
9. In view thereof, whatever the decision taken
by the authority on 17.5.1999 by placing the
petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-
25-1500/- with prospective effect will not to be
said to suffer from any inference."
8. In view of the above decision and response of opposite
party No.3, this Court is inclined and in favour of accepting the
plea of the petitioner with the conclusion that the direction
contained in the impugned letter at Annexure-12 to be held not
legally tenable and also the letter of opposite party No.4 dated
4th May, 2011 i.e. Annexure-13.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered.
10. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned orders as at Annexures-12
and 13 are hereby set aside for the reason stated herein above.
11. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
12. A copy of the order be handed over to Mrs. S. Mohanty,
learned ASC for the State.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CTC
Date: 09-Feb-2026 11:28:06
