Samtiram Jena State of Odisha and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No. 910 of 2013 Samtiram Jena State of Odisha and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. S.B. Jena, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Nayak, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
Decision
ORDER 19.01.2023 Order No. 02. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by opposite party no.1 under Annexure-5, by which the grievance of the petitioner has been rejected in pursuance of the order dated 14.08.2013 passed in O.A. Nos. 909, 910 and 911 of 2013. 4. Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner approached the tribunal for grant of relief, as has been prayed in the writ petition, which was considered by the tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2013 by directing the authority to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-4 dated 25.02.2013. On consideration of the same, the order impugned dated 15.04.2014 has been passed by the authority under Annexure-5, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court should interfere with the same by quashing the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the authority. 5. Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing Page 1 of 4 for the State-Opposite Parties states that the order impugned having been passed by the authority by assigning reasons, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that by way of representation dated 25.02.2013, the petitioner claimed for promotion to OFS-II. While considering such representation, it was brought to the notice of the authority that though CCRs and other service records of Odisha Sub-ordinate Finance Service Officers were called for to consider their promotion to OFS-II for the year 2007-08 and 2008- 09, but due to administrative reasons the DPC could not be held up to 27.02.2009. OFS-II cadre was abolished on 28.02.2009, for which the case of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to OFS-II. Since the post of OFS-II is non-existent and the petitioner has already retired from service and, as such, promotion is not a matter of right of a Government servant, consideration of his representation for promotion to OFS-II does not arise. So far as promotion of the OSFS (Commercial Tax Branch) is concerned, they had been promoted to OFS-II as per the order of the apex Court pronounced in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.CC-14792-14793/2012 of State Government filed against the judgment dated 16.04.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 1982 of 2009 of this Court and O.A. No. 1187 of 2009 of Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. In order dated 14.02.2012, this Court directed to consider the case of the petitioners of O.A. No. 1187 of 2009 for promotion to OFS-II in accordance with OFS Rules, 1979 and complete the process within Page 2 of 4 six months. As such, the order was passed specifically for the petitioners of O.A. No. 1187 of 2009 only, not as a general order with applicability to all and sundry. The further reason assigned by the authority that there is difference between the cases already decided and the present writ petition. The officers, who were promoted as a result of the judgments of the tribunal, this Court as well as the apex Court were agitating for their promotion since 2009, when they were deprived of, as the DPC could not be held, whereas the petitioner had not raised the issue during the period of 2009 and thereafter. But after a gap of more than four years, more particularly after his retirement, he has raised the issue only when some of the OSFS officers belonging to the Commercial Tax category got a favourable decision from the Court. In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Shiv Charan Bhandari, Civil Appeal Nos.7328-7329 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15197-98 of 2012), the apex Court in paragraph-22 of the said judgment held as under:- “22. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotions. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not by applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting Page 3 of 4 promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the tribunal and accepted by the High Court. True it is, notional promotional benefits have been granted but the same is likely to affect the State exchequer regard being had to the fixation of pay and the pension. These aspects have not been taken into consideration. What is urged before us by the learned counsel for the respondents is that they should have been equally treated with Madhav Singh Tadagi. But equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not after expiry of two decades. Not for nothing, it has been said that everything may stop but not the time, for all are in a way slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time.” 7. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds that the authority is well justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, as he has approached the authority after four years from his retirement claiming promotional benefit without holding the said post. Thereby, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of order dated 15.04.2014 under Annexure-5. Consequentially, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Page 4 of 4