The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14617 of 2023 Dillip Kumar Tirkey and others …. Petitioners Mr. S.C.D. Dash, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Miss B. Dash, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 30.06.2025
Decision
Order No. 02. 1. Heard Mr. Deb Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State. Instant writ petition 2. the petitioners challenging the impugned decision by order dated 11th April, is filed by 2023 as per Annexure-8 of learned Additional DG of Police, SAP, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and further to revert them to the feeder cadre as Sepoys and Constables in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20th August, 1999 of the GA Department, Government of Odisha on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Deb Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Havildar on different dates and thereafter, moved representations addressed to opposite party No.4 as per Page 1 of 5 Annexure-3 series seeking their reversion to the feeder cadre but it was disallowed. The further submission is that some of the Havildars were reverted to the posts of Sepoy and Constable by a decision dated 21st September, 2021 as per Annexure-7 series but the petitioners have been singled out for no apparent reason. The contention is that the petitioners could not have been denied such reversion as all of them declined to avail it as well as future promotions and therefore, in view of the Office Memorandum dated 20th August, 1999 i.e. Annexure-2, the order of rejection as per Annexure-8 passed rejecting the representations is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice with consequential directions issued in that regard. 4. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State refers to the counter affidavit filed through opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and submits that though the Office Memorandum dated 20th August, 1999 allows forgo of promotion but it shall be when such promotion is due or one has already received the offer for promotion but the option cannot be exercised thereafter having been promoted and since the petitioners were promoted in the year 2021, their reversion to be feeder cadre could not be allowed and rightly, therefore, it has been rejected vide Annexure-8 and such rejection is also on account of administrative exigencies. 5. As per the Office Memorandum i.e. Annexure-2, promotion implies the advancement to a higher rank or grade in Page 2 of 5 service career and it is normally accepted by a Government servant; also involves shouldering of larger responsibility but it is permissible for a Government employee, who is due for promotion or has already received offer of promotion to represent to forgo the same. While dealing with the question as to whether a Government servant may be allowed to forgo the promotion for a particular period after which he may opt to be considered for promotion once again or forever with the condition that he may be retained in a particular station or post, as is clarified therein, it is not desirable to introduce an element of optional deferment of promotion for temporary periods and employee, who does not wish to accept the larger responsibility of a higher rank/grade, may forgo the promotion once and for all. 6. Mr. Deb Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners made representations as per Annexure-3 series but in spite of such request received from them, forgo of promotion as was sought for stood declined vide Annexure-8. It is claimed that the petitioners are similarly situated like others, who have been reverted to the feeder cadre by a decision as per Annexure-7 series. In response to the submission of Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State that promotion must be due to avail and in the instant case, the petitioners having been promoted long before and hence, forgo of the same is not permissible, Mr. Deb Dash, learned counsel refers to Annexure-7 series and submits that the delay is not attributed to them. Page 3 of 5 7. The Office Memorandum dated 20th August, 1999 is at Annexure-A/4 of counter affidavit and as it has already been discussed before, the Government employee has a right or option to forgo the promotion. But the Memorandum further prescribes that promotion to forgo one may avail at the time when it is a due or when the Government servant received the offer of promotion. In the case at hand, the State’s objection to the reversion is on account of the petitioners having been promoted to the post of Havildars but in view of Annexure-7 series, the Havildars, who are similarly situated like the petitioners, were reverted to feeder cadre referring to Annexure-2. The Court is of the conclusion that denial of reversion of the petitioners should not have been on the ground of administrative exigencies more so when others equally place were allowed by a decision in the year 2021, at the time when, the representations by the petitioners had already been received and pending decision of opposite party No.4. Such is the view of the Court for the reason that someone who similarly situated should not be treated differently and in the case at hand, the petitioners since declined promotion in future promotion and demanded reversion, opposite party No.4 ought not to have refused the same especially when already a reversion of Havildars to the feeder cadre was permitted as per Annexure-7 series and therefore, the impugned decision dated 11th April, 2023 i.e. Annexure-8 is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued. Page 4 of 5 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order of rejection dated 11th April, 2023 as per Annexure-8 is hereby quashed with a direction to opposite party No.4 to allow reversion of petitioners as has been pleaded for with a decision and final order to be passed in that regard preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order undertaking such exercise with suitable adjustments made in order deal with the administrative exigencies. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 02-Jul-2025 18:29:21 Page 5 of 5