Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 9645 of 2024 Laxminarayan Prasad Nayak ..... Petitioner Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.02.2025 Order No. 07 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the communication issued by Opp. Party No. 2 vide letter dtd.19.10.2023 under Annexure-5 and consequential implementation of the same by Opp. Party No. 4 vide Annexure-7. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that arrear claim of the Petitioner as due and admissible when was forwarded to Opp. Party No. 2 vide letter dtd.16.09.2023, Opp. Party No. 2 while returning back the said proposal vide the impugned communication dtd.19.10.2023, observed that Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of TBA scale as has been sanctioned in his favour w.e.f.23.05.2003 and instead Petitioner is eligible to get it w.e.f.24.03.2005. With regard to the extension of the benefit of Page 2 of 4. 2nd RACP w.e.f.01.05.2013 was also objected by Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned communication. 4.1. It is contended that on receipt of the communication under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No. 4 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, suo moto refixed the pay of the Petitioner by modifying the date of sanction of TBA to 24.03.2005 in place of 24.03.2003 and so also the benefit of RACP vide order dtd.07.09.2024 under Annexure-7. 4.2. It is contended that since in terms of the impugned communication issued under Annexure-5 pay fixation of the Petitioner was made suo moto by Opp. Party No. 4 by modifying the benefit so extended way back in the year 2003 vide the impugned order dt.07.09.2024 under Annexure-7, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law on the ground of non-compliance of principle of natural justice. It is accordingly contended that the impugned communication issued under Annexure-5 and so also compliance vide order under Annexure-7 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 2, made submission in support of the impugned communication issued under Annexure-5 and consequential order passed under Annexure-7. 5.1. It is contended that considering the claim of the Petitioner to get some arrear entitlement when Opp. Party No. 2 found that Petitioner has been sanctioned with the benefit of TBA from a previous date i.e.23.05.2003 instead of 24.03.2005 and has also Page 3 of 4. been extended with the benefit of 2nd RACP w.e.f.01.05.2013, he raised objection and remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 4 vide the impugned letter dtd.19.10.2023 under Annexure-5. Basing on the objection so raised by Opp. Party No. 2, Opp. Party No. 4 complied the same with passing of order dtd.07.09.2024 under Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that since Opp. Party No. 4 has complied the direction issued by Opp. Party No. 2, no fault can be found with such action of Opp. Party No. 4. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while considering the claim of the Petitioner so forwarded by the B.E.O. vide letter dtd.16.09.2023, Opp. Party No. 2 vide his letter dtd.19.10.2023 under Annexure-5 raised certain objection with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to get the benefit of TBA scale w.e.f.23.05.2003 as well as the benefit of 2nd RACP w.e.f.01.05.2013. 6.1. As found from the record, Opp. Party No. 4 basing on Annexure-5, suo moto corrected the date of sanction of TBA scale from 24.03.2003 to 24.03.2005 and also fixed the pay accordingly w.e.f.01.01.2006. It is the view of this Court since Petitioner was extended with the benefit of TBA scale w.e.f.24.03.2003, basing on Annexure-5, no change could have been made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court for the present without interfering with the impugned communication under Annexure-5, is inclined to quash the order passed by Opp. Party No. 4 on 07.09.2024 under Annexure-7. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 Page 4 of 4. to comply the direction issued by Opp. Party No. 2 by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to place his case. 6.2. This Court further directs the Petitioner to file his objection to the communication issued under Annexure-5 before Opp. Party No. 4 along with a copy of this order on/before 21st March, 2025. Opp. Party No. 4 is directed to consider the objection and take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha