The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) (OAC) No.3108 of 2016 Sarat Chandra Jena …. Petitioner Mr.B.B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 18.01.2024 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order dtd.30.03.2016 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-19. 4. Vide the said order, the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of senior SES from the date his juniors got the said benefit vide order dtd.03.05.1999 has been rejected. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though Petitioner was admittedly senior the private Opposite Party No.5, but when Opposite Party No.5 was // 2 // extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior SES vide order dtd.03.05.1999, Petitioner claiming similar benefit approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.2314 (C) of 2000. The Tribunal vide order dtd.12.05.2014 while disposing the matter issued the following direction:- “Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and keeping in view of the fact that since the name of applicant was at Sl. No.1569 in the gradation list, whereas the name of Bijaya Kumar Mohanty was at Sl. No.1981 and the name of Prafulla Kumar Baral was at Sl. No.1594 and they have been promoted to the post of Sr. SES ignoring the case of the applicant, as mentioned in the counter filed by the respondents, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the applicant for his promotion to the Sr. SES cadre with effect from the date Prafulla Kumar Baral got such promotion with all consequential financial benefits, keeping in view of the fact that the applicant has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation since 2005. It need not be said that since Bijaya Kumar Mohanty is not a party to this O.A. and applicant has not made any prayer for his promotion to OES Class-II cadre in this O.A., no order can be passed in that respect as submitted by Mr. B, Mohanty, learned counsel. The entire exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the arrear of benefits be extended in favour of the applicant within a period of two month thereafter”. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that while issuing the direction to extend the benefit, learned Tribunal clearly held that one Prafulla Kumar Baral who was placed at Sl.No. 1594 in the rank of Junior SES has got the benefit of promotion, even though Petitioner was placed above him at Sl.No.1569. Accordingly, the Tribunal while disposing the matter directed Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for his promotion to the rank of senior SES w.e.f. from the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // date the said Prafulla Kumar Baral got such benefit of promotion with all consequential financial benefits. 4.3. It is contended that Opposite Party No.2 while considering the claim of the Petitioner though found that Prafulla Kumar Baral is placed below the Petitioner but on the face of such finding, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.30.03.2016 under Annexure-19. 4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that Petitioner without getting the benefit of promotion retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2004. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law on the face of such order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-15 and Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the said order. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that the Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Junior SES in the year 1974 and he accepted the said benefit without any objection. Petitioner only on 28.05.1999 made his claim to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior SES. Since the claim of the applicant is a belated one, the same was not considered, even though the Tribunal directed so in its order under Annexure-15. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioner is admittedly placed at Sl.No.1569 in the gradation list of junior SES and Sri Prafulla Kumar Baral was placed at Sl. No. 1594. Considering the position of the Petitioner vis-à-vis Sri Baral, the Tribunal directed Opposite Party Nos.1 to 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion from the date Prafulla Kumar Baral got the said benefit with all consequential financial benefit. Even though the said fact is admitted by Opposite Party No.2 while considering the claim, but on a ground which is not germane to the issue, the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected. 6.1. Since it is not disputed that Prafulla Kumar Baral is placed below the Petitioner in the rank of Junior SES and he got the benefit of promotion vide the order dtd.03.05.1999, this Court considering the order passed by the Tribunal is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner has been wrongly rejected without proper application of mind by Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the office order dtd.30.03.2016 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-19. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to extend the benefit of promotion from the date Prafulla Kumar Baral got the benefit vide order dtd.03.05.1999. However, since the Petitioner in the meantime has retired from his service w.e.f. 31.10.2004, Petitioner be given the benefit of Page 4 of 5 // 5 // promotion for the period from 03.05.1999 to 31.10.2004 on notional basis. Petitioner will however be entitled to get benefit of revision of pension and other pensionary benefits with extension of the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 03.05.1999 to the rank of Senior SES. The differential pension and pensionary benefits as due and admissible with such extension of the benefit, be released in favour of the Petitioner by Opposite Party No.2 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jan-2024 11:05:36 Page 5 of 5