Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4953 of 2026 Prahalad Charan Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Saroja Kanta Samal -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. D.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 17.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “Therefore, in view of the above said fact and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties may be pleased direct the Opp. Parties, more particularly Opp. Party No. 4 i.e.. Block Education Officer, Puri Sadar, to act upon the letter dated 07.03.2024 issued by the DEO , Puri under Annexure-8 to sanction and release the periodic annual increment in favour of the present petitioner for the year 2024 and 2025 within a stipulated period. And/or pass any other order as may be deemed just and Page 2 of 4. proper in the circumstances of this case;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner, who is working as Assistant Teacher, Level-V at present working as Matitota Primary School under BEO, Puri was entangled in a Vigilance Case bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No.5 of 2023 for commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.02.2023. Although the Petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid vigilance case. However, subsequently he was enlarged on bail. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the present Petitioner in which a draft memorandum of charge was served on the Petitioner by the DEO, Puri on 21.03.2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the meantime, the Petitioner has been reinstated in service. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner and the present writ application is that although the aforesaid proceeding is pending however, the Petitioner is not getting his increment as due and admissible to him. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the Block Education Officer, Puri (Sadar)-Opposite Party No.4 by filing a representation at Annexure-7. He further contended that the Opposite Party No.3-DEO, Puri has already recommended the name of the Petitioner for grant of increment to the BEO-Opposite Party No.4 vide his letter dated 07.03.2024 at Annexure-8. Since the increment has not been sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party, by filing the present writ application. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the order passed by this Court in the case of Page 3 of 4. Rabinarayana Mohapatra vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No. 8484 of 2024, disposed of vide order dated 07.04.2022. By referring to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in an identical matter, this Court had directed for grant of increments to the Petitioner, such order passed by the learned Single Judge Bench has also been confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1335 of 2022 vide order dated 03.11.2022. In the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is no other legal impediment in sanctioning and disbursing the increments as due and admissible to the present Petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.4 by filing a detailed representation and in the event such representation is still pending for final consideration, he will have no objection, if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the representation of the Petitioner is strictly in accordance with law and disposed of the same within a stipulated period of time. 8. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the grievance of the Petitioner as involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.4 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner as involved in his representation at Anexure-7 and dispose of such representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight Page 4 of 4. weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. It is further directed that while considering the representation of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.4 shall take into consideration the judgment referred to hereinabove by this Court and the ratio laid down therein. In the event, it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to the increment as per law and in terms of a judgment referred to hereinabove then necessary follow up steps be taken by the Opposite Parties to grant and disburse such increment, if there are no other legal impediments. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant