The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) NO.3951 of 2022 Krushna Chandra Panda …. Petitioner Mr. L. Mohanty, Adv. -versus- A. State of Odisha & Others … Opp. Parties State Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No
Decision
ORDER 08.04.2024 1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that since the order passed under Annexure-7 had earlier been set aside by this Court and subsequently, order at Annexure-12 has been passed, Petitioner does not want to challenge the order at Annexure-7. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer. “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why the order of reduction of pay dated 17.11.2020 under Annexure-7 and order dated 30.12.2021 issued by the Opp. Party No.3 as communicated by the Opp. Party No.3 dated 27.01.2022 under Annexure-12 shall not be quashed/set aside and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 17.11.2020 under Annexure-7 and order dated 30.12.2021 as communicated by Opp. Party No.4 dated 27.01.2022 under Annexure-12. A further direction be issued by the Opp. Parties to refix the pay of the Petitioner as per earlier order dated 11.09.2014 under Annexure-6 and release all the arrear; within a date be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. The order dated 03.11.2020 issued Opp. Party NO.2 under Annexure-14 which has been passed contrary to Finance Deptt. Resolution dated 08.04.2010 under Annexure-5 cannot sustainable in the eye of law, and liable to be quashed as because both the Petitioner and Malayalal Ganguly had belongs to LESE Cadre and promoted to Jr. SES Cadre in which the Petitioner was senior to said Malayalal Ganguly in the promotional cadre of Jr. SES.” 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner basing on the clarification issued by the Government in the Finance Department on 08.04.2010 under Annexure-5, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of stepping up of pay w.e.f 17.06.2006 vide Office Order dt.11.09.2014 under Annexure-6, so issued by Opp. Party No.3. 5.1. It is contended that while in receipt of the benefit in terms of order at Annexure-6, self-same Opp. Party No.3 vide order dt.17.11.2020 when cancelled the order issued under Annexure-6 without giving any opportunity of hearing, the matter was carried to this Court by the Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.32278 of 2020. This Court while setting aside the order at Annexure-7 vide Order dt.13.08.2021, remitted the matter to Opp. Party No.3 to accept the objection of the Petitioner to the ground for cancelling the order and to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. 5.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13.08.2021 in W.P.(C ) No.32278 of 2020, Petitioner filed his objection under Annexure-10 and it was also accepted. But Opp. Party No.3 without taking a decision on his own, referred the matter to Opp. Party No.2 and Opp. Party No.2 when provided with the instruction that the order of cancellation at Annexure-6 has been rightly issued, Opp. Party No.3 declined to interfere with the order at Annexure- 7 and passed the impugned order on 30.12.2021 under Annexure-12. 5.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the claim as made in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court so rendered in the case of Purna Chandra Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Page 2 of 4 Others, 2022 (I) OLR 917. It is also contended that since the initial order at Annexure-7 was issued pursuant to the direction issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Opp. Party No.2, the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim by setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-12. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that Petitioner in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) NO.32278 of 2020 was given due opportunity of hearing and with due consideration of the objection, the order under Annexure-12 was passed. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and it requires no interference of this Court. 6.1. It is also contended that taking into account the initial date of appointment of Malayalal Ganguly and that of the Petitioner, Petitioner cannot be treated as senior to Mr. Ganguly and his claim has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order at Annexure-12, The benefit since was extended wrongly by Opp. Party No.3 vide order dt.11.09.2014 under Annexure-6, the same was cancelled vide Order dt.17.11.2020 under Annexure-7, so upheld vide order under Annexure12. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner was extended with the benefit of stepping up of his pay in terms of order passed by Opp. Party No.3 on 11.09.2014 under Annexure-6. Since the said order was cancelled vide order dt.17.11.2020 under Annexure-7 without following the principle of natural justice, this Court in the earlier Writ Petition while setting aside the order, remitted the matter to Opp. Party No.3 to take a fresh decision. But as found from the impugned order, Opp. Party Page 3 of 4 No.3 without applying his own mind, simply relying on the instruction provided by the Director-Opp. Party No.2 confirmed the order so passed by him under Annexure-7 vide the impugned order dt.30.12.2021 under Annexure-12. 7.1. However, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Purna Chandra Mohapatra as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner requires a fresh consideration. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.30.12.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-12. However, since the impugned order has been passed on the instruction of the Director, Secondary Education-Opp. Party No.2, this Court while quashing the impugned order, remit the matter to Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of stepping up of pay by following the decision in the case of Purna Chandra Mohapatra as cited (supra). Such a fresh decision, as directed, be taken by Opp. Party No.2 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order with due intimation to the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: AUTHENTICATION OF ORDER Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Apr-2024 20:06:34 Page 4 of 4