The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12800 of 2025 Nalini Prusty ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Manoja Kumar Khuntia State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 08.05.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-
Legal Reasoning
“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following; i. To quash the order dtd. 4.11.2024 under Annexure-8 in so far as it relates to denial of financial benefit to petitioner Page 1 of 8. Sahoo and granting promotion to petitioner with effect from the date of joining of Smruti Rekha of 7.05.2013. To direct the opposite parties to promote the petitioner to the rank of OFS-1 (SB) w.e.f 7.5.2013 with all financial and consequential benefits. instead ii. iii. To direct the opposite parties to promote the petitioner to the rank of OFS-1 (SG) w.e.f 1.5.2018 with all financial and consequential benefits. iv. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest ofjustice.” 4. The factual background leading to the filing of the present writ petition, in short, is that the Petitioner was initially appointed in the OFS Cadre on 26.03.1999. While working as such, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner on 12.05.2004. Finally, the Petitioner was imposed with penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 27.05.2010. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by disciplinary authority, the Petitioner challenged the order of punishment before the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.862/2010. The Tribunal disposed of the above noted O.A. vide order dated 19.12.2012 thereby setting aside the punishment order with a further direction to the respondents to issue fresh order in tune with the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No.1074/1992 within a Page 2 of 8. period of six months. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that the persons junior to the Petitioner were promoted to the rank of OFS-I(SB) w.e.f. 07.05.2013. He further contended that pursuant to the order dated 19.12.2012, the Opposite Parties reconsidered the case of the Petitioner and again imposed the punishment of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect w.e.f. 19.07.2013. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner once again approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1771/2013. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.02.2015 quashed the order of punishment and directed the respondents to grant all consequential service and financial benefits to the Petitioner within two months from the date of communication of the order dated 11.02.2015. 7. After disposal of the above noted O.A. vide order dated 11.02.2015, although the Opposite Parties revoked the punishment order, however the Petitioner was promoted to the rank of OFS- I (SB) on 09.09.2015. In the meantime, State-Opposite Parties challenged the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal by filing W.P.(C) No.16171 of 2015 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.01.2023, dismissed the said writ petition. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order Page 3 of 8. of the Tribunal dated 11.02.2015 attained finality, as the same has not been further assailed by the State-Opposite Parties. Eventually, vide order dated 13.10.2023, the Opposite Party No.1 revoked the order of punishment dated 19.07.2013. After disposal of the above noted writ petition and after revocation of the punishment order dated 19.07.2013, although the Petitioner was given promotion to the post of OFS-I(SB), however the same was done from a later date compared to the juniors to the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such decision of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has submitted a representation before the Opposite Party No.1 on 06.05.2024 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition. He further submitted that representation of the Petitioner has been disposed of vide order dated 04.11.2024 by the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 04.11.2024 under Annexure-8 indicating therein that the Petitioner has been given promotion from the date of her junior Smruti Rekha Sahoo joined in the aforesaid rank. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the above noted Smruti Rekha Sahoo was given promotion along with seven other persons, however due to delay in her joining, other persons, who were given promotion to the post of OFS-I (SB), joined prior to Smruti Rekha Sahoo and those are admittedly junior to the Petitioner. As a result, the Petitioner has become junior to his juniors, who were promoted along with Page 4 of 8. Smruti Rekha Sahoo. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for a direction to the Opposite Parties to give promotion to the Petitioner from the date of her juniors, other than Smruti Rekha Sahoo, were given such promotion to the post of OFS-I(SB) and consequential promotion in service which has already been given to such juniors of the Petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no instruction in the
Decision
matter, however on perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the representation of the Petitioner dated 06.05.2024 under Annexure-7 has already considered and disposed of by the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 04.11.2024 under Annexure-8. He further submitted that the Petitioner has already been given promotion from the date of her junior, namely Smruti Rekha Sahoo was promoted to the rank of OFS-I(SB). In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the grievance of the Petitioner has already been redressed. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, further taking note Page 5 of 8. of the documents annexed to the present writ petition, this Court observes that the punishment, which was imposed on the Petitioner, has already been revoked by the Opposite Parties pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal dated 11.02.2015 further reveals that a direction has been given to the Opposite Parties to grant all consequential service and financial benefits to the Petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the initiation and disposal of the departmental proceeding will have no bearing on the career of the present Petitioner. Therefore, the Opposite Parties should have treated the Petitioner as per her standing in the common gradation list and, accordingly, she should have been extended with all service and financial benefits as is due admissible to her. Further, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the above named Smruti Rekha Sahoo who is the immediate junior to the Petitioner, was given promotion to the post of OFS-I(SB) but she joined the said post subsequent to the joining of the other juniors to the Petitioner, this Court is of the observation that the same cannot be used as a benchmark to determine the seniority of the present Petitioner. On the contrary, the Opposite Parties are duty bound to consider the Petitioner on the basis of his position in the common gradation list and further keeping in view the fact that whether any of the juniors to the Petitioner, Page 6 of 8. including Smruti Rekha Sahoo, have been given promotion to the concerned post and take necessary steps to safeguard the seniority of the Petitioner in the common gradation list. 10. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the order dated 04.11.2024 under Annexure-8 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner and the Petitioner to be given promotion to the post of OFS-I (SB) from the date her juniors have been given such promotion including the above named Smruti Rekha Sahoo. In the event it is found that any of the juniors to the Petitioner have been given promotion prior to the above named Smruti Rekha Sahoo, then the same shall be accepted as the benchmark. Accordingly, the Petitioner be given promotion to the post of OFS-I(SB) from such date. It is further directed that in the event such juniors, who were given promotion prior to Smruti Rekha Sahoo, have been given further promotion, then case the Petitioner shall also be considered for further promotion keeping in view the fact that her juniors have been given promotion and such promotion shall be counted from the date her juniors have been given further promotion to OFS suppertime grade. 11. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to approach Page 7 of 8. the Opposite Party No.1 along with a copy of this order. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do the needful to carry out the entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 15-May-2025 14:55:04 Page 8 of 8.