The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 30458 of 2023 Jagabandhu Padhi …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mekap, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 04.10.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to settle the matter finally and open the sealed cover proceeding adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of the deceased son of the Petitioner and to give the deceased son of the Petitioner notional promotion and, accordingly, calculate all arrear dues and sanction the same to the legal heirs of the deceased son of the Petitioner, namely, Sushil Kumar Padhi within a stipulated period of time. // 2 // 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the son of the present Petitioner, namely, Sushil Kumar Padhi, joined as Fishery Extension Officer (FEO) at Nabarangpur on 7.6.1996. While the son of the Petitioner discharging his duties as Junior Fishery Officer, the post was re-designated as Assistant Fishery Officer upon restructure of Fishery Cadre. While the son of the Petitioner was continuing in service and discharging his duties as Fishery Extension Officer, he has entangled in a Vigilance Case bearing Vigilance G.R. Case No.14/2006 on the file of Sub Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore. Parallelly, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. While the Petitioner was working as Junior Fishery Officer, a DPC was convened to consider promotion of 10 Junior Fishery Officers to the post of Assistant Director of Fisheries, although the name of the Petitioner was considered by the DPC, however, the result of such consideration was kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of the Disciplinary Proceeding. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that during the pendency of the Departmental Proceeding, the son of the Petitioner has expired on 15.3.2014, as a result of which, the Vigilance Case which was pending before Special Judge, Jeypore abated on 30.10.2014. So far the Disciplinary Proceeding is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the Office Order No.12903 dated 22.11.2014 of the Joint Secretary to Government of Odisha, Fisheries & ARD Department under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, submitted Page 2 of 5 // 3 // that the Departmental Proceeding drawn up against the above named Sushil Kumar Padhi, Ex-JFO, was dropped. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the aforesaid proceedings have come to an end, the son of the Petitioner has not been given promotion by opening the sealed cover and, accordingly, all service and financial benefits as is due and eligible to the deceased son of the Petitioner have not been calculated and paid to the legal heirs of the above named Ex-Government employee. 6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the wife of the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7468 of 2020, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 5.3.2020 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further drawing attention of this Court to a reply dated 4.1.2021 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition to one Kumari Padhi, who happens to be the mother of the deceased employee, under the Right to Information Act, submitted before this Court that on a specific query, the P.I.O.-cum-Under Secretary to Government of Odisha, Fisheries & ARD Department has replied that opening of the sealed cover in respect of Late Susil Kumar Padhi is under active consideration of the Government and steps have been taken to convene a review DPC under the Chairmanship of Commissioner-cum-Secretary, F&ARD Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Department. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, submitted that despite the aforesaid information dated 04.01.2021, till date no action has been taken by the Opposite Party No.1. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that it appears from the Annexures appended to the writ petition that both the proceedings have come to an end, however, they have not obtained any instruction with regard to the assertions made in the writ petition by the Petitioner. However, he further contended that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.1 within a stipulated period of time, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the materials on record as well as keeping in view the limited nature of grievance, this Court instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court, deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation along with the supporting documents within a period of three weeks from today. In the event such a representation is filed, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the same strictly in Page 4 of 5 // 5 // accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. It is also directed that in the event the authorities come to a conclusion that both the proceedings have to come to an end, then necessary steps be taken up by opening the sealed cover and grant notional promotion to the deceased son of the Petitioner and, accordingly, all financial benefits be calculated, sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within a period of further six weeks, if there is no other legal impediment. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Debasis (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 09-Oct-2023 18:52:01 Page 5 of 5