The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 30350 of 2022 Pran Krishno Panigrahi ..... State of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. T. Patnaik, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 4) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 14.08.2025 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. T. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 4. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is prayed, therefore that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to;
Decision
i) Admit the writ petition. ii) Direct the Opp. Parties more particularly the O.P. No.1 to grant all the consequential financial and service benefits notionally attached to the post of ORS from the date of promotion of his immediate juniors including O.P.No.5 to the post of ORS for the recruitment year, 2013 i.e. w.e.f. 17.12.2015 as per order 28.03.2017 under Annexure-3 of Learned O.A.T. dated Bhubaneswar passed in O.A.No.190/2016 and; Page 1 of 6. iii) And further be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of O.A.S. w.e.f. the date of promotion of his juniors including O.P. No.5 with all consequential service and financial benefits by holding a review D.P.C. within a stipulated period of time; (iii) Pass such other order (s), direction (s) as deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case to give complete relief to the petitioner; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that while continuing as against the post of Sr. Clerk, Petitioner though was otherwise eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS as against the recruitment year 2013, but he was not given with the said benefit. While declining the Petitioner to get the said benefit of promotion as against the recruitment year 2013, persons similarly situated and juniors to the Petitioner were extended with the benefit of promotion to ORS vide notification dtd.17.12.2015 under Annexure-2. 4.1. It is contended that challenging such action of the Opp. Parties and claiming the benefit of promotion to ORS as against the recruitment year 2013, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 190 of 2016. The Tribunal vide order dtd.28.03.2017 under Annexure-3 while disposing the matter, issued the following direction so contained in Para 9, 10 & 11: “9. In view of the above discussion the O.A. is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to hold a review of the DPC held on 30.11.2015 for recruitment to ORS Group-B by way of promotion for the year 2013 to consider the applicant’s case. 10. Respondent No. 4 is directed to forward the case of the applicant with up-to-date available CCRs to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who after suitably including his in the gradation list Page 2 of 6. shall place it before the meeting of review D.P.C. for recruitment to ORS for the recruitment year 2013. In case the applicant is found suitable by the review D.P.C. his name be recommended to respondent No. 1 for appointment as per the revised recommendation of the DPC from the date his immediate juniors have got such appointment. 11. In case of such appointment, he will be entitled all the consequential financial and service benefits notionally from the date his immediate juniors in the revised list got such promotion and actual financial benefits from the date he discharges his duties.” 4.2. It is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal was never assailed. However, while implementing the said order by extending the benefit of promotion by conducting Review DPC vide order dtd.11.11.2020, Petitioner though was promoted as against the recruitment year 2013, but his date of promotion was treated prospectively instead from the date persons similarly situated and juniors to the Petitioner were given the said benefit vide notification dtd.17.12.2015 under Annexure-2. 4.3. It is contended that taking into account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal, which was never assailed under Annexure-3, Petitioner on being found eligible to get the benefit as against the recruitment year 2013, he should have been given the benefit of promotion notionally from the date notification dtd.17.12.2015 under Annexure-2 was issued. However, while taking his date of promotion to the rank of ORS though as against the recruitment year 2013, but his promotion was taken prospectively i.e. from the date of publication of the notification dtd.11.11.2020 and consequential joining on 19.11.2020. Petitioner’s date of joining in ORS cadre was Page 3 of 6. also taken as 19.11.2020 in the gradation list of ORS published on 24.08.2022 under Annexure-14. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that taking into account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal, which was never assailed, Petitioner should have been given the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS from the date similarly situated and juniors to the Petitioner were given the said benefit vide notification dtd.17.12.2015. 4.5. Even though in terms of the said order Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit as against recruitment year 2013 and the said order was acted upon vide order dtd.11.12.2020 under Annexure-11, but Petitioner’s promotion was taken prospectively in stead of taking the same from the date such promotion was effected vide notification dtd.17.12.2015. 4.6. It is accordingly contended that because of the wrong committed by the Opp. Party No. 1, Petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of next promotion to the rank of OAS, which his juniors also got in the year 2017. It is accordingly contended that the action of Opp. Party No. 1 in taking the date of promotion of the Petitioner as against ORS prospectively in terms of order dtd.11.11.2020 under Annexure-11 is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner’s promotion be taken as 17.12.2015 when juniors to the Petitioner were extended with the benefit of promotion to the ORS cadre. 5. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 17.11.2022, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since the order passed by the Tribunal under annexure-3 has been duly implemented by Page 4 of 6. extending the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS vide order dtd.11.11.2020 and in the meantime Petitioner has also got the benefit of promotion to the rank of OAS, Petitioner has got no other grievance. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that vide notification dtd.17.12.2015 under Annexure-2, a no. of employees were extended with the benefit of promotion to the ORS rank, which includes Opp. Party No. 5 so placed at Sl. No. 7 of the said notification. Petitioner when challenged such action of the Opp. Parties in not extending him the benefit of promotion to ORS as against the recruitment year 2013, the Tribunal vide order under Annexure-3, while disposing the matter, directed the authorities to conduct a review DPC and observed that if the Petitioner is found eligible as against the recruitment year 2013, then he be given all consequential financial and service benefits notionally from the date his immediate junior got such promotion and actual financial benefit from the date he discharged his duty. 6.1. As found from the record, in terms of the said order, the review DPC found the Petitioner eligible in its proceeding dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-6. Recommendation of the Committee reads as follows:- “Hence, Committee decided to recommend the name of Sri Pranokrishno Panigrahi for promotion t ORS cadre against the recruitment year, 2013 subject to availability of vacancy or creation of a supernumerary post for the said year to be decided by Government for compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal.” Page 5 of 6. 6.2. It is found that basing on such recommendation of the DPC, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS vide notification dtd.11.11.2020 under Annexure-11 as against the recruitment year 2013, where he joined on 19.11.2020. Since in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3, Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS as against the recruitment year 2013, considering the nature of order passed by the Tribunal which was never assailed, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner should have been extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS from the date Opp. Party No. 5 got the said benefit in terms of notification dtd.17.12.2015. 6.3. Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend the benefit of promotion in favour of the Petitioner from the date Opp. Party No. 5 got the said benefit in terms of notification dtd.17.12.2015 and extend all benefits as due and admissible in terms of the direction issued by the Tribunal in its order under Annexure-3. This Court directs opp. Party No. 1 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Aug-2025 18:01:43 Page 6 of 6.