The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9896 of 2025 Parimita Mishra ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Digambara Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 10.04.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a ’Rule-Nisi’ calling upon the Opposite Party to show-cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs shall not be issued directing the Opp.Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of DLC with effect the date the junior was given promotion all consequential service and financial benefits and further consequentially direct the Opp. Parties to suitably and appropriately modify the gradation 16.02.2023 from with Page 1 of 4. list of DLC by placing the petitioner at the appropriate place and upon causes shown if any or upon insufficient causes shown the said Rule be made absolute. AND Pass such other order/orders and/or writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially the Petitioner was granted promotion to the rank of District Labor Officer on 29.11.2018 which was to take effect from 31.10.2017. At that time one Harapriya Nayak was placed just below the Petitioner in the gradation list. On 24.06.2021 the Odisha Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959 was amended. On 06.12.2022 a gradation list was published wherein the Petitioner’s name was shown at Sl. No.4 and the name of Harapriya Nayak at Sl. No.5. While the Petitioner was working as a District Labor Officer (DLO), Nayagarh on 16.01.2023, a departmental proceeding was initiated against her vide memo dated 16.01.2023. While the matter stood thus on 16.02.2023, 11 persons were given promotion to the post of District Labor Commissioner including the above named Harapriya Nayak at Sl. No.5 in the gradation list and one Sujit Patnaik, who is admittedly junior to the present Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.38521 of 2023 which was disposed of on 30.11.2023 directing the authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion by convening a DPC and by adopting a sealed cover method. Since the order was not implemented, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present contempt application. During the pendency of the contempt application the departmental proceeding initiated against the present Petitioner was dropped. Page 2 of 4. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that again a DPC meeting was convened on 08.08.2024, however, the case of the Petitioner was not considered on the ground that the Petitioner has not uploaded the annual property statement in the HRMS Portal. Being aggrieved by such order the Petitioner once again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31038 of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2024 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in the review DPC after providing opportunity to the Petitioner to upload her annual property statement in the HRMS Portal as has been directed vide order dated 13.12.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that despite order dated 13.12.2024, the case of the Petitioner has not been considered as of now although the annual property has already been uploaded in the meantime. He further contended that contrary to the order dated 13.12.2024, no review DPC has been convened. As a result of which, the Petitioner is seriously prejudiced as the admitted juniors to the Petitioner in the gradation list have been given promotion to the post of DLC by passing the Petitioner. He further contended that ventilating her grievance the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Parties by filing a detailed representation dated 01.02.2025 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The same is stated to pending before the Opposite Party No.1 for taking a final decision on such representation. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, on perusal of the pleadings contained in the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto, it appears that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1, who is competent to take a decision in the Page 3 of 4. matter. He further contended that in the event the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-13 is still pending before the Opposite Party No.1, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on such representation of the Petitioner, keeping in view the gradation list and the suitability of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 8. 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 documents annexed to the present writ petition, further keeping in view the order passed by this Court in the previous writ applications dated 13.12.2024, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-13, if the same is still pending, within a period of six weeks, strictly in accordance with law from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order, by keeping in view the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.31038 of 2024 and pass a speaking and reasoned order therein. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Apr-2025 10:54:59 Page 4 of 4.