The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C(OAC) No.1289 of 2019 Shashi Bhusan Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. S. Behera, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 17.04.2025 Order No 16. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Pursuant to order dated 3.4.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction in Court. The same be kept in record. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 30.05.2019, so passed by opposite party no.2 under // 2 // Annexure-14. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of two advance increments was rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that taking into account of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 03.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.17869 and 17870 of 2017, Petitioner became entitled to get the benefit of two advance increments. But the same when was not extended, petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3016 (C) of 2018. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.03.2019, when directed for consideration of petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 under Annexure-14. 5.1. It is contended that such a decision was taken by opposite party no.2 taking into account the proceeding of the Departmental Expert Committee meeting held on 06.02.2019 vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3. 5.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that taking into account the fact that a writ petition has been filed against similar order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.687 of 2017, the Expert Committee did not recommend the claim of the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // petitioner to get the benefit of two advance increments. It is however contended that writ petition filed against order dated 09.05.2018 in O.A. No.687 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16526 of 2021 is already dismissed on 21.03.2024. It is contended that challenging such order passed by this Court on 21.03.2024 in W.P.(C) No.16526 of 2021, State has not moved the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing any application as on date. 5.3. It is contended that since claim of the petitioner was not recommended by the Expert Committee taking into the fact that a writ petition has been filed against similar order passed in O.A. No. 687 of 2017, and in view of the fact that the said writ petition in W.P.(C) No.16526 of 2021 has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2024, rejection of petitioner’s claim basing on such recommendation made by the Expert Committee under Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that petitioner’s claim in terms of earlier order passed by the Tribunal be considered afresh by the Departmental Expert Committee taking into account the dismissal of the writ petition filed against order dated 09.05.2018 in O.A. No.687 of 2017. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on instruction contended that against order dated 21.03.2024 in W.P.(C) No.16526 of 2021, though no SLP has been filed as yet by the State, but claim of the petitioner has been rejected taking into account the decision taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.17869 and 17870 of 2017 and other batch of similar cases. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the said rejection. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner raised his claim to get the benefit of two advance increments before the authority and the same when was not considered, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3016(C) of 2018. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.03.2019, disposed of the matter with a direction on opposite party no.2 to consider the petitioner’s claim. 7.1. As found from the record, basing on the decision taken by the Departmental Expert Committee in its meeting held on 06.03.2019 under Annexure-B, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 under Annexure-14. As Page 4 of 6 // 5 // found from Annexure-B, the Departmental Expert Committee did not recommend claim of the petitioner to get the benefit inter alia on the ground that against similar order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.687 of 2017, a writ petition has been filed before this Court. But as found and which is not disputed, against order dated 09.05.2018 in O.A. No.687 of 2017, the writ petition filed by the State in W.P.(C) No.16526 of 2021, has since been dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2024. It is also not disputed that against such order passed by this Court on 21.03.2024, no SLP has been moved as yet by the State. 7.2. Since the Committee only on the ground that a writ petition has been filed against similar order dated 09.05.2018 in O.A. No.687 of 2017, did not recommend the claim of petitioner and the said writ petition has since been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2024, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which the claim of petitioner was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court inclined to quash order dated 30.05.2019 so passed by opposite party no.2 under Annexure-14. While quashing the said order, this Court directs opposite party no.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of petitioner taking into Page 5 of 6 // 6 // account the fact that the writ petition filed against order dated 09.05.2018 in O.A. No.687 of 2017 has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2024. This Court accordingly directs opposite party no.2 to take a fresh decision by convening a meeting of the Expert Committee. This Court directs opposite party no.2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from date of receipt of this order with due communication to the petitioner. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 03-May-2025 12:52:28 Page 6 of 6