The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28649 of 2023 Susanta Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. S. Jena, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.12.2024 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 31.07.2023 so passed by the O.P. No.4 under Annexure-12. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk from the date his juniors got the said benefit in the year 2013 and subsequent promotion to the post of Head Clerk was rejected. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner though was Senior in the rank of Jr. Clerk but his claim to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk was not considered in the year 2013, when the DPC was so // 2 // held, because of pendency of 2 nos. of departmental proceedings against the petitioner. But persons placed below the petitioner in the rank of Junior Clerk, got such benefit vide office order dated 30.12.2013 under Annexure-3.
Legal Reasoning
4.1. It is contended that petitioner after being exonerated in both the departmental proceedings, though he was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk vide office order dated 01.10.2022 under Annexure-6, but the same was extended only w.e.f. 04.04.2022 basing on the DPC recommendation dated 24.12.2021. It is contended that petitioner was exonerated in both the proceedings vide office order dated 17.08.2022 and 23.09.2022 respectively. 4.2. It is contended that subsequent to the DPC held in the year 2013, in the DPC held on 11.12.2018 under Annexure-15, claim of the petitioner though was considered and he was found eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk, but because of the pendency of the proceedings against him, such claim of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover. 4.3. It is contended that since it is not disputed that the petitioner was exonerated in both the proceedings, in view of the guideline issued by the G.A. Department in its office memorandum dated 18.02.1994 under Annexure-4, petitioner was eligible and entitled to get the benefit Page 2 of 7 // 3 // basing on the recommendation made by the DPC in its proceeding dated 11.12.2018 under Annexure-15 on notional basis, even though his juniors got the said benefit in the year 2013. It is however contended that without following the stipulation contained in the office memorandum dated 18.02.1994 under Annexure-4, petitioner when was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk vide office order dated 01.10.2022 w.e.f. 04.04.2022, he raised his grievance to get such benefit from the year 2013, when his juniors got such benefit and further benefit of promotion to the rank of Head Clerk which fell due after 4 (four) years of continuance in the rank of Senior Clerk. 4.4. It is contended that claim of the petitioner though was recommended by the Promotion Adalat vide Annexure-8 and subsequently petitioner made a detailed representation under Annexure-9, but when no decision was taken, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20311 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 04.07.2023, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing O.P. No.4 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim taking into account recommendation made by the promotion Adalat. 4.5. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s claim, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk so made Page 3 of 7 // 4 // under Annexure-7 and 9, recommended by the Promotion Adalat vide Annexure-8 was rejected vide the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 under Annexure-12. 4.6. It is contended that since in the DPC held on 11.12.2018, petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of promotion being placed at Sl. No.2 in the Gradation List of Junior Clerk and his claim was kept in sealed cover because of the pendency of the 2 nos. of disciplinary proceedings, after his exoneration in both the proceedings vide order dated 17.08.2022 and 23.09.2022, he should have been given the benefit of promotion in terms of the recommendation of the DPC dated 11.12.2018, even though a claim was made that he is entitled to get such benefit from 2013. It is accordingly contended that in view of the recommendation made by the DPC on 11.12.2018, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit in terms of the said recommendation has not been properly appreciated while rejecting his claim vide impugned order under Annexure-12. It is accordingly contended that matter be remitted to O.P. No.4 to take a fresh decision with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Sr. Clerk taking into account the recommendation made by the DPC on 11.12.2018 and consequential promotion to the rank of Head Clerk. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since 2 nos. of proceedings were pending against the petitioner by the time the DPCs were held in the year 2013, 2018 and 2021, petitioner was not extended with the benefit of promotion. After being exonerated in both the proceeding vide order dated 17.08.2022 and 23.09.2022 basing on the recommendation of the DPC dated 24.12.2021, petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Sr. Clerk w.e.f. 04.04.2022 vide order dated 01.10.2022 under Annexure-6. 5.1. It is also contended that since petitioner got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk w.e.f. 04.04.2022, prior to completion of 4 years in the said rank, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Head Clerk. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection so available under Annexure-12. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner was not extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk while extending similar benefits in favour of his juniors vide order dated 30.12.2013 under Annexure-3 because of the pendency of the proceedings. But since no document has been Page 5 of 7 // 6 // enclosed to the Writ Petition showing that claim of the petitioner was recommended in the DPC held in the year 2013, claim of the petitioner to get such benefit from the date his juniors got the benefit vide office order dated 30.12.2013 under Annexure-3, as per the considered view of this Court, is not entertainable. 6.1. However, since it is found that claim of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover because of the pendency of the proceeding in the DPC held on 11.12.2018, placing reliance on the G.A. Department Memorandum dated 18.02.1994, it is the view of this Court that petitioner’s claim to get the benefit to the rank of Senior Clerk should have been considered taking into account the recommendation of the DPC dated 11.12.2018. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2023, direct O.P. No.4 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk basing on the DPC recommendation dated 11.12.2018 on notional basis. 6.2. This Court accordingly directs O.P. No.4 to take a fresh decision as directed, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. If on such consideration, petitioner is found eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk on notional basis in terms of the recommendation of the DPC Page 6 of 7 // 7 // dated 11.12.2018, consequential follow up action be also taken to consider his eligibility and claim to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Head Clerk. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Dec-2024 16:22:24 Page 7 of 7