IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4073 of 2021 Dillip Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Adv. for O.P.No.3 to 7 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 06.04.2026 9. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing 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 be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue RULE NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opp. parties to show cause as to why the impugned order No.384 dated 06.01.2021, so far as withdrawal of promotion increment of the petitioner dated 03.07.2010 is concerned, shall not be set aside and why it shall not be declared that the petitioner is entitled to the said promotional increment in addition to his annual increment and 3rd ACP @ Rs.4200/- w.e.f 01.01.2013. In the event of the Opp. Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute. p. 2 p. 2 And further be pleased to pass any order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duly bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that without following the order passed by this Court in its order dtd.26.11.2020 under Annexure-11, since the impugned order has been passed on 06.01.2021 vide Annexure-12, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation also fairly contended that the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.7 for passing of a fresh order, considering the grievance raised, which was directed to be considered by this Court in its order dtd.24.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No.31360 of 2020. 7. Mr. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at this point of time contended that while considering the claim in terms of the earlier order of this Court, relevancy and effect of office order dtd.20.08.2025, so passed by the Corporation be also taken into consideration. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while quashing the impugned order p. 3 p. 3 dtd.06.01.2021 under Annexure-12, directs Opposite Party No.7 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the order passed by this Court on 26.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No.31630 of 2020. Opposite Party No.7 is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. While taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of office order dtd.20.08.2025 be taken into consideration, if it is applicable to the Petitioner’s claim. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the order dtd.20.08.2025 before Opposite Party No.7 for compliance. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat