Ramakanta Bal vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2026 Latest Caselaw 892 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ramakanta Bal vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 3 February, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           WP(C) No.3288 of 2026
            Ramakanta Bal                .....      Petitioner
                                                                Represented by Adv. -
                                                                Hara Prasad Rath

                                             -versus-
            1) State Of Odisha                          .....       Opposite Parties
            2) Director Of Elementary Education,                Represented by Adv. -
            Odisha                                              Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
            3) District Education Officer,
            Kendrapara
            4) Block Education Officer, Derabis

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                                   ORDER

Order No.                                          03.02.2026
    01.        1.     This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
               /Physical 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, there for prayed that, the Hon'ble Court be graciously please to ISSUE RULE NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to extent the benefit of pay protection in the present Post w.e.f. 01.12.1995 at last pay drawn in the previous post of Resource Teacher and pay the arrear differential salary accrued there from, and upon failing to show cause or showing insufficient case, said rule be

made absolute, allow the writ petition, issue writ of mandamus directing the Opposite parties to grant the protection of pay of the old post in the new post w.e.f. 01.12.1995 and pay the arrear differential salary upon refixation of pay under different ORSP Rules accordingly within a stipulated time.

And pass any other order(s)/ direction(s) issues writ/writs this Hon'ble Court would deem fit and proper."

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by the fixation of pay of the Petitioner at a lower scale, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. He further submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to pay the protection under Rule 74(d) of the Odisha Service Code. However, such benefit has not been extended in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such decision the Petitioner had earlier approached the Opposite Party No.3, the D.E.O., Kendrapara by filing a detailed representation dated 10.11.2025 at Annexure-3. However, no decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner.

5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, referred to the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.20602 of 2023 in the matter of Abhimanyu Bal vs. State of Odisha and Ors. submitted before this Court that the Petitioner is entitled to such benefit as has been held by the Coordinate Bench. He further submitted that despite such order in the case of similarly situated persons, the Opposite Parties have not taken any decision in respect of the present Petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation dated

10.11.2025 at Annexure-3 and the same is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.3, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite party No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with the rules and the notification/resolution which would applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's case, within a stipulated period of time.

7. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.11.2025 under Annexure-3 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, by taking into consideration the judgment referred to herein above delivered in the case of Abhimanyu Bal (supra). The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

Rubi