[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Gopal Krushna Panigrahi vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 17 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8209 of 2026
Gopal Krushna Panigrahi ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sidhant Das
-versus-
1) state of odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) finance dept., govt. of odisha, Represented by Adv. -
represented through its principal
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
secy., bhubaneswar
3) director, directorate of odisha
language, literature and culture
dept., bhubaneswar
4) utkal university of culture,
bhubaneswar
5) board of management, utkal
university of culture, bhubaneswar
6) registrar, utkal university of
culture, bhubaneswar
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
17.03.2026
Order No.
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 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
sought for the following relief:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(i) Admit the Writ Application;
(ii) Call for the Records;
(iii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/Orders,
Direction/Directions directing the 0pp. Parties to
modify the Office Order No.EGt/4/2018/855AJUC dated
11.08.2021 (under Annexure-18), thereby allowing the
Petitioner to draw minimum scale of pay against the
post of Jr. Steno retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2016,
within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court;
(iv) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/Orders,
Direction/Directions directing the 0pp. Parties to extend
the benefit of minimum scale of pay to the Petitioner,
working against the post of Jr. Steno, retrospectively
w.e.f. 01.01.2016, along with all other consequential
benefits, within a reasonable time to be stipulated by
this Hon'ble Court;
(v) And/or pass such other Order/Orders,
Direction/Directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper for the ends of justice under the facts and
circumstances of the present case at hand:"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Typist on
temporary basis on 13.12.1999. Thereafter the post was duly
sanctioned by the Government with effect from 28.02.2000.
While this was the position, on 04.06.2001 the Government of
Odisha Tourism and Culture Department created and
sanctioned 17 Class-III posts and 7 Class-IV posts of Utkal
University of Culture. After creation of the posts, the Petitioner
was again issued with an order of appointment as a Junior
Stenographer on 08.01.2002.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
on 07.09.2017 the minimum scale of pay as prescribed under
the ORSP Rules, 2017 was implemented with effect from
01.01.2016 and the same was made applicable to all regular
teaching and non-teaching staff of the University. Since the
Petitioner and similarly situated other employees were left out
of the purview of ORSP Rules, 2017 and they were denied the
minimum scale of pay, they initially approached the Vice
Chancellor of the University by filing a representation on
17.12.2016. By the aforesaid representation, the Petitioner and
similarly situated other employees claimed remuneration at par
with the regular employees.
6. Since no decision was taken on the representation of the
Petitioner by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the
Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.22820 of 2017 along with other similarly situated
non-teaching employees of the University. This Court, vide
order dated 01.12.2017, disposed of the abovenoted writ
application by directing the Vice-Chancellor of the University
to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in accordance
with law within a period of two weeks. Since no action was
taken from the order passed by this Court on 01.12.2017 the
Petitioner was again compelled to approach this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.34671 of 2020 along with similarly situated other
employees, which was again disposed of vide order dated
08.12.2020 with a direction to the Vice Chancellor of Utkal
University of Culture to dispose of the representation of the
Petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that after disposal of the second writ application
preferred by the Petitioner, the Board of Management of the
Utkal University of Culture, vide the Resolution No.1103
dated 23.06.2021 took a decision to implement ORSP Rules in
favour of the Petitioner and similarly situated other employees
and they were extended with the benefit of minimum scale of
pay as per the recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission with
the usual D.A. The decision of the Board of Management was
carried out by order of the Vice Chancellor of the University
vide letter dated 28.07.2021. The grievance of the Petitioner in
the present writ application is that although a decision was
taken to extend the benefit of minimum scale of pay, the same
was with effect from the date 01.07.2021. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the Petitioner is
entitled to such benefit must prior to the aforesaid date.
Accordingly, the Petitioner has again approached this Court by
filing the present writ application with a prayer to ante-date the
minimum scale of pay which was extended in favour of the
Petitioner with effect from 01.07.2021 pursuant to the decision
of the Board of Management.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that on perusal of the writ application it appears that
the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.4
the Vice-Chancellor of the Utkal University of Culture for
redressal of his grievance by filing a detailed representation
dated 22.12.2025 at Annexure-24 to the writ application. He
further contended that since the Petitioner has already
approached the competent authority for redressal of his
grievance, the present writ application is premature. He further
submitted that he will have no objection in the event this Court
directs the Opposite Party No.4 to consider and dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with the
applicable rules, within a stipulated period of time.
9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of
the background facts of the case. Further taking into
consideration the limited nature of the grievance, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of
admission by directing Opposite Party No.4 to consider and
dispose of the representation of the Petitioner strictly in
accordance with the applicable rule and law and, dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy
of todays' order. The final decision so taken be communicated to
the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 20-Mar-2026 10:51:11
