High Court of Orissa
Case Details
00THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.15980 of 2021 Saradindu Satapathy …. State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Petitioner Ms. S. Mohapatra, Adv. Opp. Parties Mr.P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.2 to .4) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 8. 1. This matter ORDER 04.09.2025 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The Present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) and Annexure-9 the Order, dated 10.02.2021 quash under thereby direct/order the Opp. Party No.4 to antedate the promotion of the Petitioner the with admitted juniors were promoted with all consequential and monetary benefits in terms of Board of Directors” decision under Anexure-5 within a stipulated period as may be prescribed by this from 14.11.2017, effect // 2 // Hon’ble Court, preferably before Notification of next higher promotion; the (ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice. (iii) And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray. 4. It is contended that in the DPC held on 14.11.2017 under Annexure-1, Petitioner though was senior in the rank of Jr. Manager (Technical) having placed at Sl. No.2, but he was not extended with the benefit of promotion as against available vacancies in the rank of Asst. Manager (Technical). However, vide the said D.P.C, two of his juniors placed at Sl. Nos.4 & 5 were not only recommended but also extended with the benefit of promotion vide order dt.04.12.2017. 4.1. It is contended that on being so discriminated, Petitioner when moved the authorities concerned, the Board of Directors in its proceeding dt.10.12.2019 under Annexure-2 took the following decisions: Extract of minutes of the 200th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Odisha Small Industries Corporation Limited (OSIC) held on 10.12.2019 at 11.30 A.M. at the Regd. Ofice of the Corporation at Madhupatna, I/E, Cuttack-753010. Item No.8.6 Approval for promotion of superseded Senior Officials affected n account of promotion of the Junior Officials made in the year, 2017. Page 2 of 8 // 3 // the Senior Considering repeated Appeals their by of the superseded Juniors officials dtd.13.12.2017 and 02.01.2019, the Board discussed the matter in detail relating to promotion of Junior officials in the year 2017 superseding the Senior officials due to adoption of CCDR evaluation on the basis of marks ignoring the seniority, which has since been the 195th Board meeting held on withdrawn 28.03.2018 to and promote/upgrade such existing affected senior officials having no departmental proceedings pending and non- communication of any adverse remarks on CCRs as there is no/very nominal additional financial implication within the overall sanctioned strength with effect from the date of promotion of the Junior officials in order to encourage their devotion on official work. unanimously decided in 4.2. It is also contended that subsequently in terms of the decision taken by the Board in its meeting held on 10.12.2019 & 11.03.2020 under Annexures-3 & 4, in the meeting held on 07.09.2020 under Annexure-6, though a decision was taken to extend the benefit of promotion in favour of the Petitioner, but Petitioner was never given the benefit of promotion. Accordingly, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.2069 of 2021. This Court vide order dt.01.02.2021 under Annexure-8 when directed the Corporation to take a decision, his claim was rejected vide the impugned order dt.10.02.2021 under Annexure-9. Claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is no clear-cut available vacancy as against UR post and accordingly Petitioner is not to be given with the benefit of promotion. Page 3 of 8 // 4 // 4.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since because of the wrong process adopted by the Corporation, Petitioner was not recommended by the D.P.C so held on 14.11.2017 under Annexure-1 and accordingly, he was deprived to get the benefit of promotion, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the said benefit from the date his juniors placed at Sl. No.4 & 5 of the Proceeding, got the said benefit vide order dt.04.12.2017. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand contended that by the time DPC was held on 14.11.2017 under Annexure-1 and since there is a provision for evaluation of CCR with award of mark and Petitioner could not get the required mark as per the evaluation, he was not recommended by the DPC while recommending the claim of the persons placed at Sl. No.4 & 5. 5.1. It is however fairly contended that stipulation for evaluation of CCR with award of mark was withdrawn by the Corporation w.e.f 28.03.2018. However, Petitioner’s claim was not considered on the ground of unavailability of vacancy in UR category and initiation of the proceeding vides Memorandum dt.02.03.2021. It is accordingly contended that since by the time DPC was held on 14.11.2017, there is a provision for evaluation of CCR with award of mark and Petitioner Page 4 of 8 // 5 // was not found eligible by the DPC, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned action of the Corporation. 5.2. It is also contended that since in the meantime, proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.02.03.2021, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of promotion. 6. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that since Petitioner was otherwise eligible to get the benefit of promotion by the time the DPC was held on 14.11.2017, initiation of the proceeding vide Memorandum dt.02.03.2021 cannot be taken as a ground to deny the benefit of promotion. It is also contended that soon after holding of the DPC on 14.11.2017, since the evaluation process was withdrawn w.e.f 28.03.2018 and the Board in its proceeding dt.10.12.2019 under Annexure-2 resolved to extend the benefit of promotion from the date his junior got the benefit, Petitioner’s claim should have been considered immediately thereafter. But the Corporation sat over the matter and thereby depriving the Petitioner to get the benefit and now the same has been rejected vide the impugned order. It is also Page 5 of 8 // 6 // contended that by the time the DPC was held on 14.11.2017 and the Board took the decision on 10.12.2019, no proceeding was pending against the Petitioner, Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit from the date his juniors got the same vide order dt.04.12.2017. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that in the DPC held on 14.11.2017 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.2 as against the post of Jr. Manager (Technical). As found from the said DPC, no proceeding whatsoever was pending against the Petitioner at the relevant point of time. But because of the adoption of the process by the Corporation in evaluating the CCR with award of mark, Petitioner was not recommended and persons placed at Sl. Nos.4 & 5 were recommended to get the benefit, which they got vide order dt.04.12.2017. 7.1. As found, the evaluation process was withdrawn by the Corporation w.e.f 28.03.2018 as per the Board’s decision dt.28.03.2018 under Annexure-2 and subsequent Board’s decision dt.10.12.2019 under Annexure-3, but on the face of such withdrawal of the evaluation process, no step was taken to consider Petitioner’s grievance on the face of his seniority over Page 6 of 8 // 7 // the persons who got the benefit in terms of the DPC recommendation dt.14.11.2017. 7.2. It is also found from the record that the Board in its Proceedings under Anneuxres-2,3,4 & 6 has considered the grievance of the Petitioner and a decision was taken to extend the benefit in favour of the Petitioner, from the date his juniors got the benefit. But on the face of such decisions taken by the Board, no action was taken and accordingly Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.2069 of 2021 to get the benefit. 7.3. But on the ground that there is no availability of vacancy in UR category, his claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.10.02.2021 under Annexure-9. Taking into account the withdrawal of the evaluation process w.e.f 28.03.2018 and the decision taken by the Board in its Proceeding under Annexures- 3,4 & 6, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of promotion from the date his juniors got the said benefit in terms of the DPC recommendation dt.14.11.2017 and vide order dt.04.12.2017. 7.4. It is also not disputed that the proceeding has only been initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.02.03.2021. Page 7 of 8 // 8 // 7.5. Therefore, the ground on which the Petitioner’s claim has been rejected, as per the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the said order and while quashing order dt.10.02.2021 so issued under Annexure-9 this Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to conduct a review DPC of the DPC dt.14.11.2017 and consider the Petitioner’s eligibility to get the benefit of promotion. On such consideration, if the Petitioner is found otherwise eligible, then benefit of promotion be extended from the date his juniors got the said benefit vide order dt.04.12.2017. 7.6. However, since the Petitioner has not got the benefit as yet, all such benefits be extended on notional basis. Pendency of the proceeding so initiated on 02.03.2021 cannot be taken as a bar to consider the Petitioner’s grievance, as directed. 7.7. With the aforesaid observation and direction,
Decision
the Writ Petition stands disposed of. sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 09-Sep-2025 18:57:39 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 8 of 8