[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mohammed Jahangir vs State Of Orissa & Anr. ..... Opposite ... on 26 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.5881 of 2026
Mohammed Jahangir ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Saroja Kanta Samal
-versus-
State Of Orissa & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
26.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has
prayed for the following relief:-
"Therefore, in view of the above said facts and
circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be graciously pleased to issue notice to the 0pp. Parties
and after hearing the parties may be pleased to direct the
0pp. Parties, more particularly to Opp. party No.3, District
Education Officer, Kendrapara, to count his services from
the initial date of his joining i.e 10.06.1988 instead of date
of passing C.T training for the purpose of Revised Assured
Career Progression ( RACP) by suitably modifying the order
dated 26.03.2018 of the District Education Officer,
Kendrapara ,0.P No.3, under Annexure-7, wherein the
petitioner has been allowed only the 2nd RACP by counting
the period of 10 years from the date of passing the C.T
examination instead of counting the period from the initial
date of joining i.e from 10.06.1988 and by adjusting the up-
gradation under ACP towards 1st up-gradation under RACP
and this Hon'ble Court may further direct the Opp. Parties
to allow 3rd MACP to the petitioner by counting the period
service from the date of joining instead of from the date of
passing the C.T examination and to allow the grade pay of
Rs. 2800/- after 1st up-gradation under RACP, Grade pay of
Rs. 4200/- after 2nd upgradation under RACP and Grade
Pay of Rs. 4600/- as third up-gradation under MACP and to
fix the pay of the petitioner in corresponding appropriate
cell & level under ORSP, Rules, 2017.
And/or to pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court deem just and proper in the facts of the case."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that initially the Petitioner was appointed as a Matric C.T Teacher
and the date of approval has been shown as 01.09.1993 under
Annexure-2 to the writ application. Thereafter, the Petitioner
acquired the C.T qualification in the year 1994 which is evident
from the document at Annexure-3. While this was the position, the
Petitioner continued in service and he became eligible to get RACP
benefits.
5. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ
application is that while extending the benefit under RACP scheme
the Opposite Party-State has taken into consideration the date of
acquisition of the qualification as the date from which the Petitioner
has entered into government service. Challenging such decision of
the government, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the
resolution dated 05.10.2015 at Annexure-6 and submitted before
this Court that it has been clearly stipulated that the transition
period from untrained to trained teacher shall be considered in
terms of the resolution of the Finance Department dated
06.02.2013. Accordingly, the Petitioner has already approached the
Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking
therein all the grounds on 20.06.2025 at Annexure-13. He further
contended that such representation is pending before the Opposite
Party No.1 for consideration.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted
that the Opposite Party No.1 is the competent authority to take a
decision with regard to the grievance of the present Petitioner. He
further contended that in the event the Petitioner has already
approached as has been pleaded in the writ application and that his
representation is still pending before the Opposite Party No.1 for
consideration, he will have no objection in the event this Court
directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on the
representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels
appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the
background facts, further keeping in view the resolution dated
05.10.2015 at Annexure-6, letter dated 02.12.2015 at Annexure-8
series and the Finance Department Circular dated 06.02.2013, this
Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage
of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and
dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-13
dated 20.06.2025 strictly in accordance with law and take into
consideration the aforesaid circulars and letters within a period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of
this order by the Petitioner. It is needless to mention here that the
representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a
speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the
Opposite Party No.1 be also communicated to the Petitioner within
ten days from the date of taking such a decision.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
