IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.36778 of 2021 Prabhat Kumar Triapthy and Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. S.B. Jena, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 12.01.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to order dated 15.09.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner filed the orders of engagement issued in favour of the petitioners by way of memo in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by quashing the order no.17322 dated 01.07.2021 under Annexure-9. And further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to pay the revised arrear dues to the petitioners as per Clause-7 series of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2018 under Annexure-5 as has been extended to other similarly situated consultants, who were working in other departments under Annexure-6 series within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.” 5. It is contended that the petitioners were all engaged after their retirement vide office orders issued under Annexure-4 and the documents filed in Court by way of a memo in Court today. It is contended that even though in terms of the order of engagement so issued under Annexure-4, petitioners were held eligible to get the benefit of re-employment pay at Rs.15,000/-, but vide office Memorandum dated 17.03.2018 under Annexure-5 so issued by the Govt. in the Finance Department-Opp. Party No.1, such remuneration was enhanced to Rs.30,000/-, as petitioners by the time they retired, were availing the pay in Level-12. 5.1. It is contended that in view of the office Memorandum so issued by the Finance Department on 17.03.2018 under Annexure-5, petitioners became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of remuneration at Rs.30,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2017. 5.2. It is contended that on the face of such Memorandum issued by the Finance Department, petitioners when were not extended with the benefit of remuneration at Rs.30,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2017, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9884 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 19.03.2021 under Annexure-9, when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected without proper appreciation vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 under Annexure-9. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that the view of the office memorandum issued under Annexure-5, petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the remuneration at Rs.30,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2017 with quashing of the impugned rejection. 5.4. It is further contended that similar issue was before this Court in W.P.C(OA) No.1573 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 12.01.2024, held the petitioner therein to get the benefit of Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that in view of nature of order passed by this Court in W.P.C(O.A) No.1573 of 2019, rejection of the petitioners claim on the ground indicated under Annexure-9, is no more sustainable in the eye of law. 6. 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 by Opp. Party No.1. It is contended that since petitioners accepted the offer of appointment so issued under Annexure-4 and in the said offer, re- employment pay was fixed at Rs.15,000/-, on the face of Annexure-5, petitioners cannot claim for enhancement of the remuneration and the same has been rightly rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and taking into account the nature of order passed by this Court in W.P.C(OA) No.1573 of 2019, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which petitioners claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 under Annexure-9 is no more sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing the said order, this Court dispose of the Writ Petition in the light of the order dated 12.01.2024 so passed in W.P.C(OA) No.1573 of 2019. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev