[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sunil Kumar Barik vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 19 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.21380 of 2023
Sunil Kumar Barik ..... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
19.03.2026
Order No.03
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the
rejection of the Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of 3 rd MACP so
communicated vide the impugned communication dtd.19.04.2023
under Annexure-4 of Opp. Party No. 1.
4. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner entered into service with
his date of joining being 14.02.1987. It is further contended that by
taking his date of appointment as 14.02.1987, Petitioner was
extended with the benefit of 1st & 2nd RACP, from the date of his
eligibility.
4.1. It is further contended that on introduction of ORSP Rules,
2017, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of 3rd
MACP on completion of 30 years of service, which fell due on
13.02.2017. It is however contended that, in spite of his eligibility to
get the benefit of 3rd MACP w.e.f.13.02.2017, Petitioner was never
extended with the said benefit in spite of repeated approach.
4.2. However, taking into account the initiation of a criminal
proceeding with lodging of the F.I.R. in Salipur P.S. Case No. 272
dtd.21.11.2018 and initiation of a departmental proceeding vide
memorandum dtd.20.08.2019, Petitioner's claim was rejected vide
the impugned communication dtd.19.04.2023under Annexure-4.
4.3. It is also contended that only after initiation of the criminal
proceeding and disciplinary proceeding, Tahasildar, Salipur-Opp.
Party No. 4 sought for clarification from the Govt., as to whether
Petitioner can be extended with the benefit of 3rd MACP because of
the pendency of the criminal proceeding as well as departmental
proceeding.
4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
since on the date of his eligibility to get the benefit on 13.02.2017,
neither any criminal proceeding nor any departmental proceeding
was pending against him, because of his implication subsequent to
his eligibility, the benefit cannot be denied on the ground indicated
in the impugned communication under Annexure-4. It is accordingly
contended that with quashing of the impugned communication, Opp.
Party Nos. 3 & 4 be directed to extend the benefit of 3rd MACP
w.e.f.13.02.2017 in favour of the Petitioner.
5. Mr. P.K. Panda learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
while supporting the impugned rejection, made his submission
basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is
contended that since by the time Petitioner's claim was considered
by Opp. Party No. 1, he was already implicated in a criminal
proceeding in Salipur P.S. Case No. 272 dtd.21.11.2018 and a
departmental proceeding so initiated vide memorandum
dtd.20.08.019, while considering the recommendation made by Opp.
Party No. 4 under Annexure-1, and further communication issued by
the RDC, Central Division under Annexure-3, Petitioner's claim
was rejected vide the impugned communication under Annexure-2
by Opp. Party No. 1.
5.1. It is contended that since by the time Petitioner's claim was
considered, Petitioner was already implicated in a criminal
proceeding as well as disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner was held
ineligible to get the benefit and no illegality or irregularity can be
found with the same.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made and which is not disputed,
Petitioner was appointed and entered into Govt. service on
14.02.1987. It is also not disputed, that taking into account his date
of appointment as 14.02.1987, Petitioner was extended with the
benefit of 1st & 2nd RACP from the date of his entitlement.
6.1. However, benefit of MACP was made available under the
provisions of ORSP Rules, 2017, and as per the said provision,
Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of 3rd MACP on
completion of 30 years of continuous service, which fell due on
13.02.2017.
6.2. It is not disputed that by the time Petitioner became eligible to
get the benefit of 3rd MACP on 13.02.2017, neither any criminal
proceeding nor any departmental proceeding was pending against
him as the criminal proceeding was initiated only on 21.11.2018 and
the departmental proceeding on 20.08.2019.
6.3. Since as on the date of eligibility of the Petitioner to get the
benefit of 3rd MACP, no proceeding was pending against the
Petitioner, which is not disputed, this Court is of the view that the
ground on which Petitioner's claim has been rejected vide the
impugned communication dtd.19.04.2023 under Annexure-4 is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
6.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the order dt.19.04.2023 so
issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-4, directs Opp. Party
Nos. 2 & 3 to extend the benefit of 3rd MACP in favour of the
Petitioner as due and admissible from the date of his eligibility.
However, such sanction of the benefit, shall be subject to final
outcome of the criminal proceeding as well as the departmental
proceeding. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 to extend the
benefit so directed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Mar-2026 10:35:04
