The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12712 of 2025 Prafulla Kumar Kar ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Laxmikanta Mohanty -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – S.K. Parhi, A.S.C.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 07.05.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing 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: “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:- (i) A direction shall not be issued to grant promotion to the post of Sr. clerk w.e.f. 01.05.2009 and thereafter in the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. 01.06.2019 taking into consideration the order passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No.955 (C) Page 1 of 5. of 2008 and batch dated 04.11.2016 under Annexure -3 which was upheld by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.23276 of 2017 dated 30.10.2023 under Annexure -4 and order of regularization dated 09.12.2024 issued by the opp.party no.2 under Annexure -8 (ii) And after hearing the parties be pleased to direct the opp.parties especially opp.party no.2 to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Sr. Clerk w.ef. 1.5.2009 and to the post of Head Clerk/ Section Officer w.e.f. 1.6.2019 with consequential financial benefit; within a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) And to the opp.parties be further directed calculate and release all arrears of the petitioner after the promotion to the post of Sr. Clerk and thereafter promotion to the post of Head Clerk (iv) And pass such other order/orders granting complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 18.05.1991 on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter, the Petitioner was compelled to approach the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal challenging the termination of the Petitioner by filing O.A. No.1415 of 1991. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.1999 directing to reinstate the Petitioner in service. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 requested the Opposite Party No.1 to necessary instruction for regularisation of service of the Petitioner. Since no instruction was given by the office of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner was again constrained to approach the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.955(C) of 2008 with a prayer for regularization of his Page 2 of 5. service. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the above noted O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 04.11.2016 thereby directing the Opposite Parties to regularize the Petitioner in service from the date of his initial appointment. The order of the Tribunal dated 04.11.2016 was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23276 of 2017. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2018 dismissed the writ petition thereby confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench on 18.06.2018, the State-Opposite Parties approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.18554 of 2024. The above noted SLP was also dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2024. In the meanwhile, the Opposite Party No.2 published a final gradation list on 11.03.2024. However, the name of the Petitioner was not included in such gradation list. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although the order passed by the Tribunal as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was given effect to that the Petitioner was regularized in service with effect from his initial entry into the service, however, his name has not been included in the gradation list. As a result, the juniors to the Petitioner have been given promotion in the meantime without considering the case of the Petitioner although he is admittedly senior to such candidates who have been given promotion to the higher rank. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party No.2 , the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a Page 3 of 5. representation dated 10.03.2025 under Annexure-9 to the writ application. Although such representation has been duly forwarded to the Opposite Party No.2, however, no decision has been taken on such representation as of now. Being aggrieved by such inaction, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter. However, on a careful analysis of the pleadings in the writ petition, it appears that the grievance of the Petitioner is still pending before the Opposite Party No.2 as is evident from the documents under Annexure-9 to the writ application. He further submitted that in the event no decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner dated 10.03.2025 under Annexure-9, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in view the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.03.2025 under Annexure-9 strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The representation of the Page 4 of 5. Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such a decision. 9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-May-2025 10:36:28