IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19361 of 2026 Bailochan Sahu and another ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Banshidhar Satapathy -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the humble petitioners fervently pray this Hon'ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the counsel of parties, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing/modifying the impugned order No. 21315/SSD dtd. 03.09.2025 passed by the Opp.party No.1, under Annexure-1, in respect of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners are entitled to get the actual financial benefit w.e.f., 26.03.1994 instead of Page 1 of 3.

26.10.2013 keeping in view Finance Dept., Order No. 21694/F dtd. 26.06.2013 and Order No. 9378/SSD dtd. 31.05.2022 of the Govt. of Odisha ST & SC Development Dept., and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. C. Lalitha reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 and in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 and calculate the arrears and disburse the same to the petitioners with a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. And/ or pass such other order or direction as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioners that although the ST & SC Development, M & BCW Department, Government of Odisha by virtue of order dated 03.09.2025 has allowed the claim of the Petitioners, however, the revision of pay has been allowed notionally w.e.f. 26.03.1994 and the actual payment thereof has to be come w.e.f. 26.10.2013. The claim of the Petitioners is for actual payment w.e.f. 26.03.1994. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture contended that the Petitioners want that their claim be considered by the authorities once again and they should be paid the actual revised pay w.e.f. 26.03.1994.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, it appears that the Petitioners have not approached the Opposite Parties for redressal of their grievance. He further contended that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to reconsider the claim Page 2 of 3. of the Petitioners as has been indicated in the writ petition in accordance with law, he will have no objection to the same. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a fresh and detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall reconsider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the Finance Department Memorandum No.21694 dated 26.06.2013 at Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the representation of the Petitioners be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 3 of 3. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Jul-2026 09:11:21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19361 of 2026 Bailochan Sahu and another ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Banshidhar Satapathy -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the humble petitioners fervently pray this Hon'ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the counsel of parties, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing/modifying the impugned order No. 21315/SSD dtd. 03.09.2025 passed by the Opp.party No.1, under Annexure-1, in respect of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners are entitled to get the actual financial benefit w.e.f., 26.03.1994 instead of Page 1 of 3.

26.10.2013 keeping in view Finance Dept., Order No. 21694/F dtd. 26.06.2013 and Order No. 9378/SSD dtd. 31.05.2022 of the Govt. of Odisha ST & SC Development Dept., and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. C. Lalitha reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 and in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 and calculate the arrears and disburse the same to the petitioners with a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. And/ or pass such other order or direction as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioners that although the ST & SC Development, M & BCW Department, Government of Odisha by virtue of order dated 03.09.2025 has allowed the claim of the Petitioners, however, the revision of pay has been allowed notionally w.e.f. 26.03.1994 and the actual payment thereof has to be come w.e.f. 26.10.2013. The claim of the Petitioners is for actual payment w.e.f. 26.03.1994. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture contended that the Petitioners want that their claim be considered by the authorities once again and they should be paid the actual revised pay w.e.f. 26.03.1994.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, it appears that the Petitioners have not approached the Opposite Parties for redressal of their grievance. He further contended that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to reconsider the claim Page 2 of 3. of the Petitioners as has been indicated in the writ petition in accordance with law, he will have no objection to the same. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a fresh and detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall reconsider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the Finance Department Memorandum No.21694 dated 26.06.2013 at Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the representation of the Petitioners be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 3 of 3. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Jul-2026 09:11:21