The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAS) No.9 of 2011 An application under Section 19 of the State Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985. ……………… Purna Chandra Panda …. Petitioner -versus- D.G. & I.G. of Police & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Putohit. For Opp. Parties : M/s. B. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel. PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:13.09.2023 and Date of Order: 22.09.2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- // 2 // “(i) Direct the Respondent to release the revised pension as per the Annexure-5 along with other retrial benefits, quashing the word ‘notionally’ as occurring in line 3 of Annexure-2 and line of Annexure-5. (ii) Direct the Respondents to pay the Arrears w.e.f. 1.2.99 till 29.9.2001 in D.S.P. Scale. And all this Original Application with cost and penal (iii) interest. (iv) Pass any further order/direction as deemed fit and proper by your lordships” 4. It is contented that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police, where he joined on 01.01.1966. Petitioner subsequently was promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police. Thereafter, because of the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner, Petitioner was not considered for his promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and his claim was kept in a sealed cover. Accordingly, while continuing as such in the rank of Inspector of Police, Police Training School, Angul, Petitioner retired from his service on attainting the age of superannuation on 30.09.2001. 4.1. It is contended that subsequent to his retirement on 30.09.2001 and after closure of the proceeding, Petitioner though was promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 08.01.1999 vide Notification dtd.24.07.2002 of Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2, but the Petitioner was not allowed to get any financial Page 2 of 8 // 3 // benefit w.e.f. 08.01.1999 till he attained the age of superannuation, save and except allowing the said financial benefit for one day i.e. for 30.09.2001. 4.2. It is contended that because of the pendency of the proceeding, the Petitioner though was eligible, was not given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the same was kept in a sealed cover. After his retirement on 30.09.2001 and on closure of the proceeding, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 08.01.1999 vide Notification dtd.24.07.2002 under Annexure-2. 4.3. It is contended that since the Petitioner was exonerated from the charges in the proceeding and he was given the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 08.01.1999 to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police vide Notification dtd.24.07.2002 under Annexure-2, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all service and financial benefits as due and admissible w.e.f. 08.01.1999. But Opposite Party No.1 while issuing the notification with extension of the benefit of promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police under Annexure-2 extended the said benefit notionally Page 3 of 8 // 4 // w.e.f. 08.01.1999 and by allowing the financial benefit for one day only i.e. 30.09.2001. 4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner could not get the benefit of promotion because of the pendency of the proceeding and after closure of the proceeding, the Petitioner was extended with the benefit, he is eligible and entitled to get the financial benefit w.e.f. 08.01.1999 and the direction contained in the Notification dtd.24.07.2002 under Annexure-2 to treat the same on notional basis w.e.f. 08.01.1999 save and except allowing financial benefit for one day i.e. 30.09.2001 is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 4.5. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-4 of the said judgment has held as follows:- “4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that grant of retrospective benefit on promotional post cannot be given to the incumbent when he has not worked on the said post. Therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit on the promotional post from 15.6.1972. In support thereof, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCC 541], Virender Kumar, G.M., Northern Railways Vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha & Ors.[ (1990) 3 SCC 472] , State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. O.P. Gupta & Ors. [ (1996) 7 SCC 533], A.K. Soumini Vs. State Bank of Travancore & Anr.[ (2003) 7 SCC 238] and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Lal & Ors. [ (2006) 10 SCC 145]. As against Page 4 of 8 // 5 // this, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the decisions given by this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors.[ (1991) 4 SCC 109], State of A.P. Vs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors.[ (1999) 4 SCC 181], Vasant Rao Roman Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 324] and State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar Srivastava [(2006) 9 SCC 621]. We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also. However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly from denied. Therefore, retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he approached the Court and learned Single Judge did not give him the monetary benefit of the promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears of salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. No. 585 of 1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This appears to be reasonable. The petitioner did not approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but he filed a petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the date of filing of the petition before the Court i.e. 15.6.1972. The incumbent in the meanwhile has retired on 31.7.1980. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere in it”. the petitioner was promoted 5. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party. It is contended that the Petitioner because of the pendency of Page 5 of 8 // 6 // the proceeding was not extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and while continuing in the rank of Inspector of Police, Petitioner retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2001. After his retirement and on closure of the proceeding wherein the Petitioner was exonerated, the Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 08.01.1999 vide notification dtd.24.07.2002. 5.1. It is contended that since the Petitioner never worked and discharged duty in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, while being extended with the benefit of promotion, the same was extended notionally w.e.f. 08.01.1999 and the Petitioner was allowed the financial benefit for one day i.e. 30.09.2001. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner never discharged his duty as against the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, he has been rightly allowed the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 08.01.1999 on notional basis with financial benefit for one (1) day and the benefit so extended vide Notification dtd.24.07.2002 under Annexure-2 needs no interference. Page 6 of 8 // 7 // 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioner while continuing in the rank of Inspector of Police, though he was found eligible for his promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, but he was not given with the said benefit because of the pendency of the proceeding. 6.1. It is found that while continuing in the rank of Inspector of Police, the Petitioner retired from his service on attainting the age of superannuation on 30.09.2001. Subsequent to his retirement and when the proceeding was closed with exoneration of the Petitioner from the charges, Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 08.01.1999. Since the Petitioner was exonerated from the charges in the proceeding in question and was extended with the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 08.01.1999 vide Notification dtd.24.07.2002 under Annexure-2, as per the considered view of this Court, the said benefit should not have been extended on notional basis. However, placing reliance on the decision so cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the financial benefit Page 7 of 8 // 8 // w.e.f. 08.01.1999, but @ 50% of the entitlement for the period from 08.01.1999 to 29.09.2001. While holding so this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to extend the financial benefits in favour of the Petitioner as due and admissible for the period from 08.01.1999 to 29.09.2001 @ 50% of the entitlement. The benefit as directed be sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 22nd of September, 2023/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jan-2024 15:50:29 Page 8 of 8