The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4829 of 2024 Jiten Kumar Puthal …. Petitioner Mr. Mithun Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others
Legal Reasoning
…. Opp. Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 04.03.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical 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 materials on record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to : (i) Direct/order the Opp. Party No.2 to promotion to the Petitioner from the post of Horticulture Extension Worker to Horticulture Oversee with effect from 12.10.2023 on the date when his counterparts got such promotion with all financial benefits, consequential service and within a stipulated period, as may prescribed by this Hon’ble Court for the interest of justice. (ii) Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as may be // 2 // deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that on 08.07.1999, the Petitioner entered into service as a Gardner. While working as such, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Horticulture Extension Worker (HEW) with effect from 07.05.2013. On 03.11.2023, a provisional gradation list of HEW was published. Since the name of the Petitioner did not find place in the gradation list, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 22.11.2023 for inclusion of his name. On 29.11.2023, the final gradation list in respect of HEW was published. While the matter stood thus, on 02.02.2024, the Opposite Party No.2 promoted 40 nos. of HEWs to the post of Horticulture Overseer. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that although the counterparts/juniors of the Petitioner have been given promotion to the post of Horticulture Overseer, the case of the Petitioner has not been considered by the Opposite Party No.2. Further, referring to letter No.234 dated 08.01.2024 of the Nodal Officer of the Opposite Party No.2, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that one post has been kept reserved for the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Horticulture Overseer after obtaining the vigilance clearance. Being aggrieved by such inaction of such Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that since the Petitioner has been entangled in a vigilance case, his case has not been considered for promotion to the next higher rank, although the cases of similarly situated other persons have been considered by the Opposite Parties. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Opposite Parties have not // 3 // committed any illegality in not considering the case of the Petitioner due to pendency of the vigilance case against the present Petitioner. He further contended that there is no provision for granting ad-hoc promotion to an employee against whom a vigilance case is pending. Accordingly, it is stated by the learned Additional Government that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same be dismissed. 6. In reply to the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that another person, namely, Mahendra Mahanta, against whom a vigilance case was pending vide Balasore File Nos.7 of 2015 and 8 of 2015, has been given promotion to the post of Horticulture Overseer vide order No.10848 dated 31.12.2020 by the Opposite Party No.2. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his argument, referred to a judgment of this Court in Patitapaban Das v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.20342 of 2021 disposed of vide order dated 08.09.2023) to impress upon this Court that during pendency of the vigilance proceeding, ad-hoc promotion can be granted to the employees considering the fact that vigilance trials take a very long time for conclusion. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in the next DPC meeting otherwise the Petitioner will be highly prejudiced. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further keeping in view the allegation that one Mahendra Mahanta, who stands in similar footing with the present Petitioner, has been given promotion in the meantime, this // 4 // Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Parties to examine the entire case of the Petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid facts. Further, it is directed that in the event the case of the Petitioner for promotion has not been considered by the Opposite Parties, the same is be considered in the next DPC and be kept in a sealed cover, which is a usual practice in such type of cases. Moreover, in the event it is found that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the above named Mahendra Mahanta, then the Opposite Parties shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. While considering the case of the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties shall also keep in mind the fact that one post has been specifically reserved for the Petitioner as has been stated hereinabove. Any final decision taken by the Opposite Parties be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 10-Mar-2024 16:42:23