Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15837 of 2026 Sunita Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv.- Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.- Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order dated 10.03.2026 so passed by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, the claim of Petitioner to get the benefit of IACPED scale of pay has been rejected on the ground that the benefit is not extendable in favour of the PETs working under SC/ST Development Deptt. as the service condition is governed under the Orissa Subordinate Tribal Welfare Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1993). 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that similar benefit though has been extended in favour of Page 2 of 3. similarly situated PETs working in SC & ST Development Deptt. vide Office Order dt.02.03.2019 vide Annexure-4 and 6 series, but the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground indicated hereinabove. 4.1. It is contended that since persons similarly situated have been extended with the benefit of IACPED scale of pay working in schools coming under SC/ST Development Deptt., the rejection of Petitioner’s claim so made vide impugned order dt.10.03.2026 under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 5. Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that under the provisions contained under the aforesaid 1993 Rules, there is no provision to extend the benefit of IACPED scale of pay. It is accordingly contended that since the Rule does not provide for extension of such benefit, the claim has been rightly rejected vide order under Annexure-8. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that persons similarly situated and working as PETs in other schools under SC/ST Department in the School and Mass Education Deptt. are getting the benefit of IACPED scale of pay in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Niranjan Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and Others, reported in 2003 (II) OLR 321. Not only that, as per order dated 06.09.2006 under Annexure-6 series, similar benefit of IACPED scale of pay has also been extended in favour of PETs working under SC & ST Page 3 of 3. Development Department. Further, in the impugned order dated 10.03.2026, under Annexure-8, four persons of PETs have been extended IACPED scale of pay in the same district as per OAT order. 6.1. Since persons similarly situated and working in the Deptt. have been extended with the benefit of IACPED scale of pay, the ground on which the Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide impugned order dt.10.03.2026 under Annexure-8, by Opposite Party No.3 as per the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the said order and while quashing the same, directs Opp. party No.2 to extend the benefit of IACPED scale of pay as due and admissible from the date of eligibility of petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Differential salary as due and admissible shall also be released within the aforesaid time period. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis