The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 14918 of 2022 ..... Rajkumar Behera Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate State of Odisha &Ors. ..... -versus- Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 28.11.2025 Order No.10 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has bene filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash order dtd:25.06.2020 and dtd:05.10.2020 of the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3 and 6 respectively and direct the Opposite Parties to include the petitioner in the common gradation list of Section Officers of Odisha Heads of the Department cadre without any discrimination and grant him appropriate promotion to the next higher rank as per his seniority and merit at least from the date his juniors got such promotion i.e. 30.04.2022 and also grant all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; Page 1 of 11. And/or issue any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case. Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash order dtd:25.06.2020 and dtd:05.10.2020 of the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3 and 6 respectively and direct the Opposite Parties to include the petitioner in the common gradation list of Section Officers of Odisha Heads of the Department cadre without any discrimination and grant him appropriate promotion to the next higher rank as per his seniority and merit at least from the date his juniors got such promotion i.e. 30.04.2022 and also grant all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; And/or issue any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case. And for this act of this kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.”
Legal Reasoning
4. It is contended that Petitioner after coming out successful in the examination conducted by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission vide notification dtd.09.02.1996 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was posted in the establishment of Odisha Administrative Tribunal. In the said notification Petitioner’s name found place at Sl. No. 56. It is also contended that vide the said notification, one Rabinarayan Patro was also posted in the establishment of the Tribunal and his name found place at Sl. No. 140. 4.1. It is contended that on his appointment in the establishment of the Tribunal, Petitioner continued and his service condition was Page 2 of 11. governed as per the provisions contained under the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers & Staff) Rules, 1999. 4.2. It is contended that while so continuing in the establishment of the Tribunal, since the Tribunal was abolished vide notification dtd.02.08.2019, some of the employees working as like the Petitioner in the Tribunal were transferred to other Heads of the Department of the Govt.. However, even after such abolition of the Tribunal, Petitioner was allowed to continue in the establishment of the Tribunal as before. 4.3. It is contended that not only Petitioner’s posting vide notification dtd.09.02.1996 under Annexure-1 was in the Tribunal, which was taken as a Heads of the Department, but also a further clarification was issued by the Govt. in the G.A. Department with issuance of the notification on 2nd March, 2012. In the said notification while a provision was added to Rule 4 of the said Rules, which reads as follows:- “Provided that recruitment to all other posts which are not specified in Schedule-1 shall be made in accordance with the provision of relevant rules, regulations, instructions or order made by the Government from time to time for recruitment to posts in similarly situated status under other Heads of Departments.” 4.4. Placing reliance on the stipulation contained in Annexure-1 and so also the notification dtd.02.03.2012, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that it is not disputed that Petitioner continued in the Tribunal, which has been declared and treated as a Heads of the Department. Page 3 of 11. 4.5. However, on the face of his continuance in terms of notification dtd.09.02.1996 and after abolition of the same vide notification dtd.02.08.2019, in Tribunal, persons similarly situated vide Office order dtd.20.03.2020 were repatriated to Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (in short OREAT) in the same capacity. However, those persons who have been repatriated to OREAT vide order dtd.20.03.2020, though have been included in the cadre of Section Officers under the Heads of the Department to Govt., but Petitioner’s claim, when was not considered for such inclusion of his name in the cadre of Section Officer continuing in the Heads of the Department to Govt., Petitioner approached this Court by filing
Decision
W.P.(C) No. 17971 of 2020. The said writ petition was disposed of on 05.08.2020, inter alia with a direction on the Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the Petitioner’s claim for his inclusion in the cadre of Section Officer coming under the Heads of the Department of Govt.. However, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.06.10.2020 under Annexure-6. 4.6. It is contended that Petitioner’s claim for his inclusion in the aforesaid cadre of Section Officer coming under the Heads of the Department to Govt. was rejected, only on the ground that Petitioner since is continuing in OAT at present, which has not been declared as Heads of the Department, Petitioner’s name cannot be included in the cadre of Section Officer. 4.7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner vide notification dtd.09.02.1996 was posted to Odisha Administrative Tribunal and in the said notification it was clearly held that he is being posted to OAT as a Heads of the Page 4 of 11. Department, it cannot be held that the Tribunal is not a Heads of the Department under the Govt.. 4.8. Placing reliance on the stipulation contained in the notification under Annexure-1 and subsequent notification dtd.02.03.2012, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner is serving in the Tribunal, which has been treated as a Heads of the Department, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.05.10.2020 under Annexure-6 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.9. It is also contended that person placed at Sl. No. 140 of notification dtd.09.02.1996 under Annexure-1 after being repatriated to OREAT vide order dtd.20.03.2020 under Annexure- H/3 series as a Section Officer, his name has been included in the cadre of Section Officer, but Petitioner because of his continuance in OAT, which is as per the view of the Govt. is not a Heads of Dept., his claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.05.10.2020. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim for inclusion of his name in the cadre of Section Officer coming under the Heads of the Department of the Govt. has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.05.10.2020 under Annexure-6, is not sustainable in the eye of law and appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party No. 1 to include his name in the said cadre. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned order, contended that Petitioner vide notification dtd.09.02.1996 was posted in OAT and he continued as such till OAT was abolished vide notification dtd.02.08.2019. Even after abolition of the Tribunal, Petitioner since is continuing in OAT and his service Page 5 of 11. condition is governed under the 1999 Rules, for inclusion of his name in the cadre in terms of the provisions contained under Odisha Heads of the Department (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Establishment Officer, Administrative Officer and Senior Administrative Officer) in the office of the Heads of the Department) common cadre Rules, 2019, Petitioner’s claim cannot be considered. Stand taken in Para 10 to 14 & 25 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “10. That the petitioner as Section Officer of the O.A.T. is governed under the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999. The office of the O.A.T. have never been declared as Heads of Department (HOD). To regulate the method of recruitment and conditions of service of officers and staff of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Government have made separate Rules called the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999. As per Rule-12 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999, the Scheme of the examination for direct recruitment of Junior Assistant shall be such as specified in the Odisha Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Assistants and Section Officers in the offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (O.S.S.C.) has conducted the recruitment examination and sponsored the names of the successful candidates for appointment in the O.A.T. But, that does not necessarily mean that O.A.T. has been declared as Heads of Department. 11. That as the Rules i.e. Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Page 6 of 11. Rules, 1999 and Odisha Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Assistants and Section Officers in the offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 1994 are separate from each other, the name of the petitioner as Section Officer of the O.A.T., governed under the O.A.T. (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999, cannot be included in the common cadre meant for HOD which is governed under the Odisha Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Assistants and Section Officers in the offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 1994. 12. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-2 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has absolutely no cause of action to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by way of filing the present writ petition which is devoid of any merit besides being not maintainable in law. 13. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-3 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that as per requisition made from the office of the O.A.T. to the O.S.S.C., the names of the selected candidates including that of the petitioner had been sponsored to the O.A.T.. The petitioner, sponsored by the O.S.S.C., vide, Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition, got appointed in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal as Junior Assistant in the year 1996, vide, O.O. No. 551. did. 25.01.1996. Before joining in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal as Jr. Asst., the petitioner had not raised any question before the O.S.S.C. whether he had been rightly sponsored to the Heads of Department or any other office of which name is not coming under the preview of the list published /declared as Heads of Department. Without raising any objection at the relevant time, the Petitioner joined as Jr. Asst. in the O.A.T. After Joining in the O.A.T., his service condition is regulated under Page 7 of 11. the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999. He is not coming under the Odisha Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment to the posts of Junior Assistants in Heads of Department) Rules, 1994. So, he cannot claim the benefits given to the employees of a different cadre of other HoDs. 14. That it is also submitted that there was no recruitment rules for the post of Junior Assistant in the O.A.T. in the year 1994. So as per the requisition made by the O.A.T., the O.S.S.C. conducted recruitment for the post of Junior Assistant following the Odisha Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Assistants and Section Officers in the offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 1994. As per rule 3(9) of the Odisha Staff Selection Commission Rules, 1993, the OSS.C is empowered to regulate the manner for conducting recruitment examinations. Recruitment and conditions of service of employees are two different things. After commencement of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999, service conditions of the petitioner is regulated under the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999. He has not challenged the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999 never before. As the Odisha Administrative Tribunal has not been included in the common cadre meant for H.O.D., inclusion of the names of the employees who are continuing in the post of Section Officer at the O.A.T. level in the common cadre is not feasible. A copy of the Odisha Staff Selection Commission Rules, 1993 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-F/3. xxx xxx xxx Page 8 of 11. 25. That as regards the averments made in paragraph-11 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that that the employees of the O.A.T. are still regulated as per the service conditions of the OAT, vide, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999 under which they have joined initially in the O.A.T.. After abolition of the O.A.T., the employees are enjoying all the benefits as they are enjoying before abolition of the OAT. In this view of the matter, the contention, "the petitioner has been victimized" is purely imaginary and baseless. Hence, the allegation in this regard is denied.” 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner is continuing in the Tribunal all through and his service condition is governed under the aforesaid 1999 Rules, and since OAT is not coming within the definition of Heads of the Department of the Govt., his name cannot be included in the cadre in terms of the aforesaid 2019 Rules. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner vide notification dtd.09.02.1996 under Annexure-1 was posted as a Junior Assistant and he was posted as such in OAT. In the said notification, Petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No. 56. It is also found that one Rabinarayan Patro on being so selected vide the aforesaid notification was placed at Sl. No. 140 and posted to OAT. Both the Petitioner and Rabinarayan Patro got the benefit of promotion and posted as such as Section Officer in OAT. 6.1. After abolition of the Tribunal vide notification dtd.02.08.2019 the aforesaid Rabinarayan Patro was repatriated to OREAT vide Page 9 of 11. order dtd.20.03.2020 under Annexure-H/3 series. It is not disputed that after being repatriated to OREAT, name of Sri Rabinarayan Patro has been included in the cadre of Section Officer coming under the Heads of the Department in terms of the aforesaid 2019 Rules. But claim of the Petitioner for similar inclusion in the cadre, has been rejected on the ground that OAT is not coming within the Heads of the Department and his service condition is governed under the 1999 Rules. 6.2. It is found that in view of the notification issued by the G.A. & P.G. Department on 22.02.2019 under Annexure-17, Petitioner since was not suitably adjusted in any other Heads of the Department under the Govt. and allowed to continue in OAT in terms of the initial notification issued on 09.02.1996, it is to be held that Petitioner has got no fault with regard to his repatriation to any other Heads of the Department. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected for not including his name in the cadre of Section Officer of the Heads of the Department under the Govt. is not legal and justified. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.06.10.2020 under Annexure-6, directs Opp. Party No. 1 either to repatriate the Petitioner to any other Heads of the Department with passing of an appropriate order or include his name in the cadre of Section Officer in terms of the aforesaid 2019 Rules or include his name in the Cadre by treating OAT as a Heads of Department. Such a fresh order be passed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Page 10 of 11. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Dec-2025 18:45:57 Page 11 of 11.