The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 1 of 2022 Sidhartha Padhy ..... State of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Petitioner Mr. B.P. Pradhan, Advocate on behalf of Ms. S. Das, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 14.10.2025 Order No. 18 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on behalf of Ms. S. Das, learned counsel and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner most humbly prays that your lordship may be graciously pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order of discharge at Annexure-5and the order of rejection of representation at Annexure-9 should not be declared as illegal and quashed; Page 1 of 7. And as to why the authorities should not be directed to treat
Legal Reasoning
the petitioner as a Fireman w.e.f.07.09.2015 in terms of Annexure-6 with consequential service benefits. And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute; And/or issue any other order/orders, direction/directions which would offer complete relief to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case; And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
Legal Reasoning
4. It is contended that on the death of the Petitioner’s father while in service, Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. 4.1. It is contended that on due consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, vide office order dtd.07.09.2015 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was appointed as a Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical). It is contended that in terms of the said order Petitioner joined on 15.09.2015 while continuing as such vide order dtd.06.02.2016 under Annexure-5, he was discharged from his services on the ground that the post in which he was appointed vide order dtd.07.09.2015 is a non-existent post and not a base level post. 4.2. After passing of such order of discharge vide order dtd.06.02.2016 under Annexure-5, Petitioner was again reappointed as a Fireman vide order dtd.06.02.2016 under Annexure-6, where the Petitioner joined on 06.02.2016. Page 2 of 7. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on such appointment as against the post of Fireman vide order dtd.06.02.2016 under Annexure-6, Petitioner joined on the said post on the very same date. But on such appointment as against the post of Fireman vide order dt.06.02.2016, Petitioner made an application to treat his period of service from 15.09.2015 to 06.02.2016 as qualifying service for all purposes. When the same was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 12894 of 2020. This Court when directed the concerned authority to consider Petitioner’s claim vide order dtd.12.08.2020, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.02.11.2021 under Annexure-9, on the ground that post of Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical) in which Petitioner was originally appointed vide order under Annexure-3, is a non-existent post and no such base level post of Fireman (Technical) is available in the establishment of Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was duly appointed vide order dtd.07.09.2015 under Annexure-3 and he joined in the said post on 15.09.2015, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as for the latches committed by the Department, Petitioner cannot be made to suffer. It is contended that no fault lies with the Petitioner for his appointment as against the post of Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical) vide order dtd.07.09.2015, where he joined on 15.09.2015. It is accordingly contended that for the latches committed by the Department, Petitioner’s continuance for the period from 15.09.2015 to 06.2.2016 cannot be taken away and the ground on which such claim has been Page 3 of 7. rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Relying on the stand taken in Para 8, 11 & 12 of the counter affidavit, learned AGA contended that since post of Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical) is not available in the hierarchy and Petitioner was wrongly appointed as against the said post vide order dtd.07.09.2015 under Annexure-3, the Department on coming across such wrong committed, discharge him from the post of Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical) vide order dtd.06.02.2016 under Annexure-5. Petitioner was reappointed as against the post of Fireman, which is a base level post, vide order dtd.06.02.2016 under Annexure-6. 5.1. It is contended that since post of Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical) is not an existing post and not a base level post, Petitioner since was wrongly appointed in the said post vide order dt.07.09.2015 where he joined on 15.09.2015, his claim to count his past service from 15.09.2015 to 06.02.2016 and to fix his seniority accordingly has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dt.02.11.2021 under Annexure-9. Stand taken in Para 8, 11 & 12 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
Decision
“8. That the averments made in Para-3 of the writ petition are not correct and hereby denied. It is humbly submitted that, for the post of Helper Fireman the minimum required criteria are as follows; Page 4 of 7. i) A candidate must be appointed as a Fireman in Odisha Fire Service and ii) He must possess ITI certificate in the respective trade. As such, the petitioner could not directly be appointed as a Helper Fireman. Besides, there is no such rule or resolution in force regarding direct appointment of Helper Fireman from among outriders nor any base level post of Helper Fireman/Fireman (Technical) existing in Odisha Fire Service. But it is an admitted fact that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Helper Fireman/Fireman (Technical) instead of Fireman on contractual basis vide letter No-1767/RO, dated 28.08.2015 under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, which was an error/unintentional mistake. But, when the error/mistake came to light during the probation period of the petitioner, the Opposite Party corrected that the unintentional mistake/error and appointed the Petitioner as Contractual Fireman instead of Helper Fireman vide D.O. NO- 124/OFS, dated 06.02.2016. xxx xxx xxx 11. That the averments made in Paragraph-6 of the writ petition are not correct and hereby denied. It is humbly submitted that, as there is no base level post of Helper Fireman/ Fireman (Technical) in Odisha Fire Service organization, so appointment of the petitioner to the post of Helper Fireman was not correct. As such, the petitioner was terminated from the post of Hepler Fireman on 06.02.2016 and on the very same day re-appointed as a Contractual fireman in Odisha Fire Service. 12. That the averments made in Paragraph-7 of the writ petition are not correct and hereby denied. It is humbly submitted that, the petitioner was discharged from contractual service on 06.02.2016 on the ground of non-existence of such base level post i.e. Helper Fireman/ Fireman Page 5 of 7. (Technical) and further re-appointed as a contractual Fireman w.e.from 06.02.2016, hence, to count forthwith past service of the petitioner does not hold any merit for consideration to fix his seniority. It is pertinent to mention here that, sub rule(b) of rule-8 of Odisha Group ’C’ and ’D’ posts (Contractual appointment) rules, 2013 reveals that, "They shall be allowed one per cent extra on the total marks of the marks examination for each completed year of continuous service subject to a maximum of fifteen per cent, which shall be added to the marks secured by them for deciding the merit position." As such, the seniority of the petitioner could not be fixed from the date of his appointment as a contractual fireman as per the above mentioned rules.” 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner on the death of his father when made an application to get the benefit of compassionate appointment, he was appointed as against the post of Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical) vide order dtd.07.09.2015 under Annexure-3, where he joined on 15.09.2015. 6.1. As found on the ground that such post of Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical) is not available and a non-existent post, Petitioner was discharged from the said post vide order dtd.06.02.2016 under Annexure-5. Vide another order issued on 06.02.2016 under Annexure-6 Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Fireman, where he joined on the very same date. Page 6 of 7. 6.2. Since after due consideration of the Petitioner’s application, Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Helper Fireman (Fireman Technical) vide order dtd.07.09.2015, where he joined on 15.09.2015, it is the view of this Court that no fault lies with the Petitioner in taking such appointment as against the post in question. It is also the view of this Court that for the wrong committed by the Department, Petitioner cannot be made to suffer and his continuance in service w.e.f.15.09.2015 cannot be taken away on the ground indicated in the impugned order. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.02.11.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure- 9. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to count the past service of the Petitioner for the period 15.09.2015 to 06.02.2016 on notional basis and count his seniority w.e.f.15.09.2015 for all purposes. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to pass an appropriate order as directed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Oct-2025 18:19:33 Page 7 of 7.