IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.14269,14271 & 14272 of 2021 Suryamani Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 12.02.2026 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since the issue involved in all the three cases is identical, all the matters were heard and disposed of by the present common order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that basing on the Notification issued by the Government in the Finance Department on 20.09.2017 so enclosed vide Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit, Petitioners exercised their option for revision of their pay. Accordingly, pay of the Petitioners were revised taking into account the option so submitted by them w.e.f. 01.01.2016 under ORSP Rules, 2017. However, subsequently when they came to know that person similarly situated and engaged along with them were drawing more salary w.e.f. 1.1.2016 under ORSP Rules 2017, they made representation under Annexure-4 with a prayer to sort out the anomaly with regard to the pay fixation of the Petitioner vis-a-vis similarly situated employees. However, such prayer of the Petitioners were rejected vide the impugned order dtd.12.06.2020, only on the ground that since the Petitioners pursuant to the Notification dtd.20.09.2017 had already exercised their option, no fresh option can be entertained. 4.1. It is however contended that since because of the wrong committed by the Petitioners in giving their option in terms of the Notification dtd.20.09.2017, they are in receipt of pay less than that of similarly situated employees, they made individual representations seeking parity of their pay fixation. But on the ground that no such 2nd option is permissible, claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.12.06.2020. 4.2. It is vehemently contended that since similar situated employees are getting higher pay than the Petitioners, because of wrong committed by them in giving a wrong option under ORSP Rules 2017, their claim could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the impugned order. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned AGA on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that after coming into force of ORSP Rules, 2017 with Notification dtd. 20.09.2017 under Annexure-C/3, all the Petitioners submitted their options. Accordingly pay of the Petitioners were fixed w.e.f. 01.03.2016 in terms of the Notification issued on 20.09.2017 under Annexure- A/2. 5.1. It is vehemently contended that as per the Notification issued under Annexure-A/2, there is no such provision for making further option, after exercise of option, with fixation of the pay. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since as per the Notification, there is no provision entitling an employee to submit the 2nd option, after exercising the option with fixation of the pay, grievance raised by the Petitioners was duly considered and rejected vide the impugned order dtd.12.06.2020. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. To the submissions made by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners also fairly contended that as per the Notification dtd.20.09.2017, there is no such provision to make a fresh option after exercising such option with fixation of the pay. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that all the Petitioners after issuance of the Notification dtd.20.09.2017 under Annexure-A/2 submitted their option in the prescribed form. Basing on such option so submitted pay of the Petitioners, their pay was fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2016 under ORSP Rules, 2017. 7.1. However, after coming to know that persons similarly situated are getting higher scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.2016 under ORSP Rules 2017, Petitioners raised grievance claiming parity. But as found from the impugned order, their claim have been rejected on the ground that no such 2nd option is permissible. 7.2. This Court after going through the Notification issued under Annexure-A/2, also finds that there is no such provision for exercise of 2nd option after exercising of the option with fixation of the pay. Since there is no such provision in the Notification under Annexure-A/2, permitting an employee to submit a fresh option after exercising the same which is not disputed, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned rejection so made vide order dtd.12.06.2020. 7.3. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order and dismiss all the Writ Petitions. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat