The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.3154 of 2018 Karunakar Dhinda …. Petitioner Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 09. I.A. No. 84 of 2023
Decision
ORDER 15.05.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Since this I.A. has already disposed of vide order dtd.08.05.2023, Office is directed to proceed accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) ` Judge 10. W.P.(C)(OAC) No.3154 of 2018 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. L.P. Dwive, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. // 2 // 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “(i) Direct/order the Respondents to give promotion to the Applicant to the post of O.A.S.-A (J.B.) w.e.f. the date the admitted juniors were promoted with all consequential monetary and service benefit within a stipulated period as may be prescribed by the Hon’ble Tribunal; (ii) Pass such other Order(s)/issue direction(s) as may be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. It is contended that the Petitioner even though was eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS (Group-B) in respect of the recruitment year 2011, but when he was not given such benefit, he approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 367(C) of 2013. The Tribunal vide its order dtd.25.08.2016 disposed of the Original Application inter alia with the following order:- “In view of the above analysis, the order dated 16.10.2012 under Annexure-5 is quashed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to constitute a review DPC to consider the case of the applicant for his promotion to the post of ORS Group-B for the recruitment year 2011 and if he is found suitable, appointment letter be issued in his favour within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that by the time the matter was disposed of by the Tribunal, persons who were found eligible for the promotion to the rank of ORS (Group-B) in respect of the recruitment year 2011, were already given the benefit of promotion vide Notification dtd.20.04.2013. The Tribunal Page 2 of 7 // 3 // accordingly held that on consideration of the claim of the Petitioner as against the recruitment year 2011, if the Petitioner is found suitable, then he will be given promotion w.e.f. the date similarly situated employees were promoted. 4.2. Mr. Dwivedy contended that while complying with the direction of the Tribunal vide Notification dtd.17.11.2018 under Annexure-3, the Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of promotion as against the recruitment year 2011. But by the time the notification issued under Annexure-3 was issued on 17.11.2018, the Petitioner had already got the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS (Group-B) in respect of recruitment year, 2012. Therefore, while issuing the Notification at Annexure-3 and while allowing the benefit of promotion as against the recruitment year 2011, it was observed that the promotion will be treated on notional basis. 4.3. Mr. Dwivedy accordingly contended that in view of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-1 and compliance thereof at Annexure-3, the Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit as has been extended in favour of similarly situated persons for the recruitment year 2011 vide Notification dtd.20.04.2013. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 4.4. It is contended that even though the Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion as directed by the Tribunal in respect of the recruitment year 2011, but by taking a plea that the Petitioner has not continued for a period of 4 years in the post of ORS (Group-B), his case was not considered while considering the case of similarly situated ORS (Group-B) Officers for their promotion to the rank of O.A.S.-A (J.B.) with issuance of Notification dtd.31.03.2018 under Annexure-6. 4.5. It is contended that in the Notification dtd.31.03.2018 under Annexure-6 persons placed from Sl. No. 23 onwards were all junior to the Petitioner as they were given promotion to ORS (Group-B) for the recruitment year 2011 vide notification dtd.20.04.2013. It is accordingly contended that in view of compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3, the Petitioner being similarly situated as like the person who were given promotion to the rank of O.A.S.-A (J.B.) vide Notification dtd.31.03.2018 under Annexure-6, is also entitled to get similar benefit. 4.6. It is also contended that on the face of the Notification issued under Annexure-3, the Petitioner was also eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of O.A.S.-A (J.B.) w.e.f.31.03.2018 when Page 4 of 7 // 5 // juniors to the Petitioner placed from Sl. No. 23 onwards were given such benefit of promotion. 5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned AGA on the other hand contended that even though the Petitioner was found eligible as against the recruitment year 2011 in compliance to the order passed by the Tribunal, but since in the meantime he had already got the benefit of promotion as against the recruitment year 2012, while complying the direction of the Tribunal with issuance of notification at Annexure-3, the year of recruitment of the Petitioner was indicated as against the recruitment year 2012. The Petitioner since was promoted to the rank of ORS (Group-B) where he joined on 31.10.2014, by the time the cases of his juniors were considered for promotion to the rank of OAS-A (J.B.) with publication of the notification on 31.03.2018 under Annexure-6, the Petitioner had not completed the required 4 years of service in the rank of ORS (Group-B). Mr. Balabantaray accordingly contended that since the Petitioner joined in the rank of ORS (Group-B) on 31.10.2014 basing on Annexure-3 and he had not completed the required 4 years of service while considering the cases of others for their promotion to the rank of OAS-A (J.B.), the Petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit as prayed for. Learned AGA further contended Page 5 of 7 // 6 // that in the meantime and vide Notification dtd.02.11.2019, the Petitioner had already got the benefit of promotion to the rank of O.A.S.-A (J.B.). 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record it is found that the Petitioner when was not given with the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS (Group-B) as against the recruitment year 2011, he approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 367(C) of 2013. The Tribunal while disposing the matter, directed the Opp. Parties to consider his claim for promotion as against the recruitment year 2011 and on such consideration if the Petitioner is found suitable, then he be given promotion from the date similarly situated employees were so promoted. 6.1. As found from Annexure-3, the Opp. Parties found the Petitioner eligible for promotion as against the recruitment year 2011. Therefore, in view of the order passed by the Tribunal and the compliance thereof, the date of promotion of the Petitioner to the rank of ORS (Group-B) should be treated as 20.04.2013 when persons similar to the Petitioner were given such benefit as against the recruitment year 2011. Therefore, in view of the compliance of the order of the Tribunal by holding the Petitioner eligible to get the Page 6 of 7 // 7 // benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS (Group-B) for the recruitment year 2011, his date of promotion to the rank ORS (Group-B) should be 20.04.2013 instead of 31.10.2014. 6.2. Therefore, while holding so this Court directs the Opp. Parties to extend the benefit of promotion to the Petitioner to the rank of O.A.S.-A (J.B.) w.e.f.31.03.2018 when his juniors were given such benefits vide Notification under Annexure-6. But the benefit of such promotion be extended only on notional basis. The Petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of promotion to the next higher rank, if his juniors in the meantime have got similar benefit. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Party No. 1 to comply with the above direction within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Cuttack Date: 16-May-2023 17:22:52 Page 7 of 7