Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7172 of 2016 Pradip Kumar Mishra ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. A.K. Nayak, Adv. -versus- Odisha State Financial Corporation, OMP Square, Cuttack & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.A. Rao, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. P.K. Behera, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 21.07.2026 Order No.14 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- (i) Admit the Writ Application. (ii) Call for the records. (iii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why Letter vide Annexure -10 series rejecting the representation pursuance to Board meeting dtd. 27.02.2016 shall not be quashed: (iv) If the parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writs quashing the above decision of the Board of Directors in holding to grant the benefit to the Page 2 of 5. employees of the Corporation w.e.f 01.04.2012 under Annexure-6 & 7 in place of 01.01.2006. (v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders, directing the Opp. Parties, particularly Opp. No. 1 to extend the benefits of revised scale of pay to the petitioners as per O.R.S.P Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.01.2006 keeping in view the recommendation made by the fitment committee and to release all consequential service benefit including arrear to the petitioners within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; And/or pass any necessary order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that ORSP Rules, 2008 on being notified by the Finance Dept., Govt. in the department of Public Enterprises fixed the criteria for extension of revised scale of pay under ORSP Rules, 2008 in favour of the employees working in different PSUS and Corporations of the State. 4.1. It is contended that in terms of the resolution issued by the Public Enterprises Dept. On 08.05.2009 under Annexure-2, a Fitment Committee was constituted and the Fitment Committee in its report under Annexure-3, observed that the employees of the Corporation are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The recommendation so made by the Fitment Committee was also accepted by the Board in its Page 3 of 5. proceeding under Annexure-4. But the Corporation extended the benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2012, in place of 01.01.2006. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the resolution issued by the Public Enterprises Dept. under Annexure- 2, the Fitment Committee answered in favour of the employees to get the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2006, further approved by the Board, there was no occasion to extend the same w.e.f. 01.04.2012. It is accordingly submitted that Opp. Party-Corporation be directed to extend the benefit of revised scale of pay under ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 5. Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand contended that even though the Fitment Committee duly recommended to extend the benefit from 01.01.2006 and the Board also take a decision accordingly under Annexure-4, but since no approval was given to the recommendation by the Finance Dept. the matter could not be referred to Public Enterprises Dept. In view of such difficulty, the benefit was not extended w.e.f. 01.01.2006, and instead it was extended w.e.f. 01.04.2012. 5.1. It is contended that since as per the requirement of the resolution Finance Dept. never gave its approval to the Corporation to extend the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2006, with due recommendation to the Public enterprises Dept., the Corporation extended the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2012. It is also contended that it is always the prerogative of this employer to fix a cut off date for extension of the benefit and the Corporation Page 4 of 5. taking into account its bad financial condition resolved to extend the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2012, in place of 01.01.2006. 5.2. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with such decision of the Corporation. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that on coming into force of ORSP Rules, 2008, which allows revised scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006, Govt. in the Dept. of Public Enterprises vide its resolution dated 08.05.2009 under Annexure-2, fixed the guideline to be followed by various PSUS/Corporations of the State, to get the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2006. As found from the record in terms of the resolution under Annexure-2, the Fitment Committee so constituted by the Corporation recommended the case for sanction of revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Board of Directors also in its proceeding under Annexure-4 approved the report of the Fitment Committee. 6.1. However, there is no document available in the case record showing prior approval of the Finance Dept. to such recommendation and concurrence of the Public Enterprises Dept. being taken to extend the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Since the prime requirement to get the benefit from 01.01.2006 is prior approval of the Finance dept. and was also the concurrence of the Public Enterprises Dept., it is the view of this Court that in absence of those two (2) vital documents, Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 6.2. It is also the view of this Court that fixation of cut-off date to extend any benefit to its employees always remains with the Page 5 of 5. employees and the Courts generally do not interfere, unless it is proved that such a cut-off date is prima facie illegal. No such material is available in the present case to exercise the jurisdiction in declaring the cut-off date 01.04.2012 as illegal. 6.3. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to extend the relief as prayed for and dispose of the Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti