[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Chinatamani Acharya vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 4 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18755 of 2025
Chinatamani Acharya ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Surendra Kumar Sahoo
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
04.02.2026
Order No.
03. 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. Perused the writ
application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has
made the following prayer.
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court
graciously be pleased;-
i) Admit the Writ application;
ii) Call for the records;
iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing 0pp. parties
to grant RACP benefits to the petitioner 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 and
W.P.(C)No. 6698 of 2020 disposed of on 13.03.2020
and SLP (C) No. 15573 of 2020 disposed of on
04.01.2021 by computing the entire period of service
rendered during the pre-taken over period w.e.f.
receiving of grant;
iv) And further be pleased to pass any other order
(s), direction (s) as this Hon'ble Court may think fit
and proper for the ends of Justice;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as
in duty bound, ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite
Parties in sanctioning and disbursing the third RACP/MACP in
favour of the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ application. He further contended that the case of the
Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in
Ashok Kumar Mohapatra vs. State of Odisha in O.A. No.1668 of
2017 decided on 09.10.2018 which has been confirmed by this
Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.15573
of 2020.
5. Learned counsel for the State on instruction vide letter dated
09.09.2025 of the Office of the DEO, Angul submitted before this
Court that the Petitioner has been allowed 2nd RACP benefit with
effect from 01.08.2013 as per the ORSP Rule, 2008 vide Office
order dated 21.12.2017 and his pay was fixed at the scale of pay
of Rs.16,390 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. Such instruction
further reveals that the Petitioner has been allowed third
upgradation under MACP with effect from 01.08.2020 and his pay
fixed under the 3rd MACP as per the ORSP Rule, 2017 vide office
order dated 19.02.2025 by the office of the DEO, Angul. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that no
grievance of the Petitioner subsists with is required to be
adjudicated by this Court in the present writ petition. Accordingly,
it was prayed that the writ petition filed by the Petitioner be
dismissed as infructuous.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for both sides, taking note of the materials
relied upon by both sides in course of hearing and on a close
scrutiny of the instruction dated 09.09.2025 this Court is of the
view that the dispute revolves around fixation of RACP/MACP
benefit as is due admissible to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner contended that he has not received the benefits as is
due and admissible to him. However, learned counsel for the
State, as per the instruction dated 09.09.2025, stated before this
Court that the Petitioner has been extended with the benefit which
has been recorded hereinabove. In such view of the matter, the
present writ application is being disposed of by directing the
authority to verify the aforesaid fact and in the event the benefits
have already been extended in favour of the Petitioner, the
Opposite Parties are not required take any further action.
However, in the event it is found that the grievance of the
Petitioner still subsists, the Opposite Parties shall do the needful
as per the ratio laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar
Mohapatra's case (supra) within a period of eight weeks from
today.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Digitally Signed Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Sisir
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 06-Feb-2026 13:34:18
