Service In Different Cadres Doesn't Bar RACPS Benefits: Orissa High Court Cites Retrospective Govt. Resolution - 2025-08-13

RACPS Benefits Cannot Be Denied Based on 'Single Cadre' Rule, Holds Orissa HC Citing Retrospective Govt. Order

CUTTACK, ODISHA – August 1, 2025 – The Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has held that an employee's service across different establishments does not disqualify them from financial upgradation under the Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (RACPS). Justice Murahari Sri Raman directed the State of Odisha to grant the third financial upgradation to a retired clerk, emphasizing that a subsequent government resolution retrospectively removing the "in a single cadre" restriction must be applied.

Case Overview

The judgment was delivered in the case of Smt. Renuka Dei vs. State of Odisha . The petitioner, Smt. Renuka Dei, joined government service as a Lower Division Clerk on June 14, 1978. She was denied the third financial upgradation under the RACPS, which would have entitled her to a grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- effective from January 1, 2013.

The petitioner had completed 30 years of service in June 2008. She was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in December 2011, after nearly 33 years of service. Her claim for the 3rd RACPS benefit, which became effective on January 1, 2013, was rejected by the authorities. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Stance: - The petitioner, represented by Advocate Manoja Kumar Khuntia, argued that her entitlement to the 3rd RACPS had accrued upon completion of 30 years of service in 2008. - A crucial argument was the reliance on a Finance Department Resolution dated February 13, 2025, which retrospectively deleted the words "in a single cadre" from the original 2013 RACPS guidelines. This modification, effective from January 1, 2013, meant that service rendered in different establishments had to be counted for calculating the eligibility period. - The petitioner's counsel also cited the precedent of State of Odisha v. Shiba Charan Bal , where a Division Bench had upheld a similar claim, and the State's counsel conceded the factual similarity.

State's Defense: - Despite being given an opportunity by a Division Bench in a prior appeal to file a counter-affidavit, the State failed to do so. - The Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. Shantanu Das, initially argued that the petitioner’s pay was correctly fixed based on her 2011 promotion. - However, during the final hearing, the State's counsel conceded that the petitioner's case was legally and factually indistinguishable from the Shiba Charan Bal case, where the benefit had been granted.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Murahari Sri Raman undertook a detailed analysis of the RACPS, its objectives, and its evolution. The court distinguished between "promotion" and "financial upgradation," noting that the latter is a benefit granted to alleviate stagnation due to a lack of promotional opportunities.

The Court highlighted several key legal points:

• Accrual of Entitlement: The petitioner had already completed 30 years of service in 2008, well before her promotion in 2011. Therefore, her entitlement to the 3rd RACPS was established before she received a regular promotion.

• Retrospective Amendment: The judgment gave significant weight to the Finance Department Resolution of February 13, 2025. The court noted: > "The words 'in a single cadre' being deleted vide Finance Department Resolution dated 13.02.2025 (which came into force with retrospective effect from 01.01.2013), it has become abundantly clear that the petitioner in terms of RACPS under the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008 is entitled to 1st, 2nd and 3rd financial upgradation as on 13.06.2008 having completed 10, 20 and 30 years of service from date of entry into the service."

• Binding Precedent: The Court found the case of Shiba Charan Bal to be directly applicable. In that case, affirmed by a Division Bench, the court had dismissed the State's argument that service in different irrigation projects constituted separate cadres. The court noted: > "Since in identical situation bearing similar question of law discussed and decided in such decision... has been acceded to by a Division Bench of this Court..., there cannot be any deviation from application of the same to the present facts and circumstances."

Final Decision and Directions

Finding that the authorities had not considered the petitioner's case in the correct legal perspective, the High Court allowed the writ petition.

The Court directed the State authorities to: - Reconsider the petitioner's representation and grant her the 3rd RACPS benefit with a grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- from January 1, 2013. - Refix her pension and release all consequential arrears. - Complete the entire exercise within two months from the date of the judgment.

This decision reaffirms the principle that career progression schemes must be interpreted beneficially to mitigate employee stagnation and that retrospective government clarifications must be honored to settle employees' legitimate dues.