Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.24804 of 2025 Krushna Chandra Panda ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sailabala Jena -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, Standing Counsel for (O.P.5) Smt. S. Nayak, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 11.05.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5- Principal Accountant General (AG) and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has sought for the following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be graciously pleased to quash the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Opp. Parties particularly Opp. Party No. 1 and 2 vide Annexure-3 and Page 2 of 4. thereby be pleased to give a direction to the Opp. Parties to grant the benefit of financial upgradation under the Revised Assured Career Progression (RACP) Scheme vide Annexure 1 and 4 in favour of the petitioner at the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-, Rs.5400/-, Rs.6600/- on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively as per the date of entitlement of the petitioner within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. This Honourable court may also be pleased to pass any other further order/orders, direction/directions, as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that being aggrieved by the impugned rejection order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Opposite Parties thereby rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- as per the RACP benefit with Grade Pay Rs.4,600/-, Rs.5,400/- and Rs.6,600/- on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively has been rejected by the Opposite Party No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the prayer of the Petitioner for revised Grade Pay under the RACP Scheme has been rejected by the Opposite Party No.2 without taking into consideration the notification of the Finance Department dated 13.02.2025 at Annexure-4. He further contended that although such notification of the Finance Department was in existence is available for the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration at the time of considering the claim of the Petitioner, however the same has not been referred to in the impugned rejection order. She further submitted that in terms of the Finance Department Notification dated 13.02.2025 the Petitioner is entitled to get the Grade Pay as has been claimed by him under the RACP Scheme. Page 3 of 4. 6. Being aggrieved by such action of Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ application thereby specifically challenging the impugned rejection order dated 02.06.2025 at Annexure-3. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the prayer of the Petitioner was duly considered by the Opposite Party No.2 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. He further contended that upon a careful consideration of the claim of the Petitioner for grant of RACP benefits, the Opposite Party No.2 found that the Petitioner is not entitled to such benefit. Accordingly by virtue of order dated 02.06.2025 at Annexure-3 the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 8 Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Principal Accountant General (AG) submitted before this Court that the Accountant General has no role so far the claim of the present Petitioner is concerned, he further contended that it is for the respective administrative department to take a decision with regard to grant of RACP benefit in terms of the resolution of the Finance Department. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present writ application is not maintainable against the Opposite Party- Principal Accountant General. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective Parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the document annexed to the writ application. Further on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 02.06.2025, this Court observed that although the claim of the Petitioner was considered pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application, however Page 4 of 4. while considering on the claim of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 has not taking into consideration the latest notification of the Finance Department dated 13.02.2025. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be reconsidered on the aforesaid limited ground and keeping in view the Notification of the Finance department dated 13.02.2025 at Annexure-4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 at Annexure-3 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the claim of the Petitioner afresh in terms of the Finance Department Notification dated 13.02.2025 within a period of three months from the date of communication of copy of today’s order. The prayer of the Petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid stipulated period of time and the final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT