IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C ) NO.17106 of 2019 Siba Prasad Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. S. Mallik, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 07.07.2026 4. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.01.02.2019, so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner for upgradation and antedating the date of sanction of increment vis-à-vis his junior was rejected. 3.1. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-7(2) (viii) of ORSP Rule, 2017(in short, “Rules”), learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, in view of the said provision, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of increment from the date his junior has got the same. However, without proper appreciation of the aforesaid provision, claim of the Petitioner so made in his representation dt.24.05.2018 p. 2 p. 2 under Annexure-3, was rejected vide the impugned order dt.01.02.2019 under Annexure-4. It is however contended that in the meantime after introduction of common cadre, Opp. Party No.3 is now the competent authority to consider the Petitioner’s claim . 4. Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand basing on the available materials contended that since in the representation made by the Petitioner under Annexure-3, there was no reference with regard to the provisions contained under Rule-7(2) (viii) of the Rules and Petitioner’s claim for antedating the date of sanction of increment was on some other ground, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parities, considering the submission made and placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(viii)of 2017 Rules, this Court is of the view that Petitioner’s claim for antedating his increment from the date the same was allowed in favour of his junior, requires a fresh consideration by Opp. Party No.3, who is now competent to take a decision, because of the introduction of common cadre. Accordingly, this Court while quashing the impugned order dt.01.02.2019 under Annexure-4, permits the Petitioner to make a fresh application before Opp. Party No.3 claiming the benefit, which is the issue p. 3 p. 3 in the present Writ Petition, within a period of 3 (three) weeks hence. 5.1. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid time period, Opp. Party No. 3 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so p assed by Opp. Party No. 3 be communicated to the Petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita