The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2562 of 2011 Brahmananda Das …. Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa & Others …. Opposite Parties COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 28.03.2023 Order No 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
treating him as a Revenue Inspector, is before this Court in the present Writ Petition. 4.3. It is contended that since the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor during the year 2002, Opposite Party No.4 while issuing the impugned communication should not have treated the Petitioner as a Revenue Inspector. 4.4. It is also contended that since during the period the Petitioner was continuing on deputation in the Housing and Urban Development Department, persons similarly situated were given promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor during the year, 1996, the Petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of promotion, after he was reverted to his parent department, where he joined on Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 20.10.2000. Accordingly, it is contended that the Petitioner is entitled to get the financial benefit as due and admissible from the date his juniors were promoted as Revenue Supervisor in the year 1996 and 1999. 5. Mr. A.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that though the Petitioner while continuing in his parent department was deputed to work as a Revenue Supervisor in the Housing and Urban Development Department on being selected and appointed, but he was reverted to his parent department as a Revenue Inspector where he joined on 20.10.2000. Since during the continuance of the Petitioner on deputation, persons similarly situated were given promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor in the year 1996 and in the year 1999, the Petitioner’s case could not be considered as he was on deputation during the relevant period. After his reversion to his parent department, his case was considered and he was given promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor during the year 2002. The stand taken by the Opposite Parties in Para-11 of the counter affidavit is reproduced hereunder:- “11. That in reply to para-6.20 to 6.22 of OA, it is submitted that Sri Trailokyanath Nayak, RI was promoted to the post of R.S during the year 1996. But the applicant’s name was redeployed in this district by the RDC(CD), Cuttack vide letter No.3000/Estt. Dt.31.05.1997. Rabindranath Nayak, RI & Jhari Biswal, RI was promoted to the post of R.S in the last DPC which was held on during the year 1999, at that time the applicant was continuing as R.S. on deputation (foreign body) under valuation organization of H&UD Deptt. When the applicant joined on 20.10.2000 as RI in this district, after reversion, the DPC was not held from the year 2000 & 2001 in this district. For the reason stated above he was not given promotion to the post of RS during the year 2000 & 2001. He was promoted to the post of RS during the year 2002. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Besides above a departmental proceeding was instituted against the applicant by the H&UD Deptt. Vide proceeding No.22787 dt.19.07.2000 as communicated by the Dy. Secretary to Govt. vide letter No.14572 dt.17.06.2011 for serving the said order on him which is annexed as Annexure- H. Accordingly the said order has been returned to Govt., H& UD Deptt. Vide this office letter NO.1475/Estt. dt,9.8.2011 after duly served on the application which is annexed as Annexure-1. Hence, the O.A being devoid of any merit may be dismissed. 5.1. Accordingly, it is contended that the Petitioner is no way aggrieved by the impugned communication under Annexure-15 and his prayer to get the benefit of promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor from the year 1996 can be considered as made in his representation under Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition. However, it is contended that since a proceeding is pending against the Petitioner so initiated by the Housing and Urban Development Department on 19.07.2000, the Petitioner is not entitled to
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the communication issued by the Opposite Party No.5 vide letter dated 23.05.2011 under Annexure-15. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Revenue Inspector in his parent department, he was selected and appointed as a Revenue Supervisor and deputed to Urban and Housing Urban Development Department vide order dated 25.08.1984 under Annexure-2. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while continuing on deputation in the Housing and Urban Development Department, persons similarly // 2 // situated and appointed as R.I were promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor during the year 1996 as well as in the year 1999. But when the Petitioner was reverted to his parent department and joined on 20.10.2000, he was allowed to continue as a Revenue Inspector, though by that time all his juniors were promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor. 4.2. It is further contended that on consideration of his claim, though the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor during the year 2002, but his claim with regard to his promotion from the date his juniors were promoted during the year 1996 and 1999 were never considered. As in the meantime, Opposite Party No.4 vide the impugned communication held the Petitioner as a Revenue Inspector while directing the Tahasildar to fix his pay under ORSP Rules, 1989 and 1996, the Petitioner challenging such action of the Opposite Party No.4 in
Decision
get the benefit unless the proceeding is disposed of. 5.2. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of initiation of the proceeding as indicated in Para-11 contended that no such proceeding was ever initiated against him with service of charge memo. It is also contended that if the proceeding as alleged could have been initiated against the Petitioner in the year 2000, the petitioner could not have been given the benefit of promotion as admitted by the opposite parties in the year 2002. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on the record, it is found that the Petitioner while continuing as a Revenue Inspector he was deputed as a Revenue Supervisor to the Housing and Urban Development Department on being selected and appointed vide order at Annexure-2. During Page 4 of 5 // 5 // his continuance in the Housing and Urban Development Department and as admitted in Para-11 of the counter, similarly situated Revenue Inspectors were promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor in the year 1996 as well as in the year 1999. Since during the relevant time, the Petitioner was on deputation, he was not given promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor and after he was reverted to his parent department, where he joined on 20.10.2000, the Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor during the year 2002. The Petitioner is accordingly not prejudiced by the impugned communication at Annexure-15. 6.1. In view of such position, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.4 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner for his promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor, from the date his juniors were so promoted in the year 1996 and/or in the year 1999. The Opposite Party No.4 is directed to take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. On such reconsideration, if it is found that the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to get the benefit of promotion from the year 1996 and/or 1999, the financial benefit as due and admissible along with the revision of pension be extended in favour of the Petitioner within a further period of 3(three) months. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Judge Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Page 5 of 5