IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17962 of 2019 Rasmiranjan Singh …. Petitioner Mr. L. K. Tripathy, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. N. Das, ASC Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 13.03.2026 03. 1. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.2 and 3. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2019 as at Annexure-17 rejecting his claim allowing a scale of pay of Rs.3050-Rs.4590 with effect from 17th May, 1999 to till 11th March, 2012 on notional basis and actual financial benefits with effect from 12th March, 2012 till the date of his regularization with such other relief sought for. 3. The representations of the petitioner are at Annexure-16 Series. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to notional scale of pay up to 2012 and actual benefits from 12th March, 2012 as per ORSP Rules, 2008 which has been denied, whereas, others similarly situated have been granted vide Annexure-12 by Government’s order dated 15th September, 2011. Recorded the submission of learned counsel for the State and also recorded the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.2 and 3. 4. Perused the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2017. The Court finds that the order is a cryptic one without any reason assigned as to why the representations of the petitioner merits no consideration. The notional scale of pay demanded by the petitioner must have to be considered and disposed of with reasons. From Annexure-17, it is revealed that the Government after consideration of the representations declined such relief to the petitioner. In absence of any such reason borne out of the record as revealed from Annexure-17, this Court is of the view that the representations at Annexure-16 series should be considered with a decision thereon followed by a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to him especially when one of the employees, namely, Pradipta Kumar Samantray has been granted such benefit vide Annexure-12. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered. 6. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-17 is hereby set aside with a direction to opposite party No.1 to reconsider the representations at Annexure-16 series to the plea of the petitioner and to take a decision on the same followed by a reasoned order at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Sumitra