The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35965 of 2023 Simanchal Kumar Prasad State of Odisha & another -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. T.Patnaik,A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 08.11.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated above it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously be pleased to admit the Writ petition and issue Rule Nisi or any other appropriate Writs against the Opp. Parties calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to consider and promote the petitioner to the rank of Deputy Director of Sericulture from the date his junior got such promotion with all consequential service and financial benefits And And, if the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute by directing the Opposite Parties to consider and promote the petitioner to the rank of Deputy Director of Sericulture from the date his junior got such promotion with all consequential service and financial benefits. And/or issue any other appropriate Writ/Writs, order/Orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case.” // 2 // 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner initially entered into Government service as a Senior Tassar Assistant on 19.09.1979. While continuing as such, the Opposite Party No.1 appointed the petitioner as Assistant Director of Sericulture w.e.f. 30.10.1992. While the petitioner was continuing as Assistant Director, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 15 of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 on 11.06.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 18.02.1999. 5. After conclusion of above noted disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 27.11.2001 imposed punishment of removal from Government service on the petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid order of removal from service dated 27.11.2001 the petitioner approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1854 of 2001. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 30.08.2006 thereby quashing the impugned order imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. 6. The Departmental Authorities being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2690 of 2007. A Division Bench of this Court on careful scrutiny of the order passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.03.2009 dismissed the writ application thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The order passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 23.03.2009 was assailed by filing a Review Petition No.187 of 2009 and the review was dismissed on 05.12.2011. In the meantime the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2012. 7. The Opposite Parties upon not being satisfied with the decision of the tribunal, as well as this Court, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the order passed by the Tribunal as well as this // 3 // Hon’ble Court in SLP No.5493-5494 of 2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.04.2014 dismissed the SLP thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal as well as this Hon’ble Court. After dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 on 19.10.2019 with a prayer to extend all consequential and financial benefits to the petitioner. The Opposite Party No.1 vide its letter dated 12.05.2020 dropped the departmental proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner and treated the period of suspension as duty, accordingly all financial benefits have been calculated, sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the petitioner. 8. The only grievance involved in the present writ application with regard to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director Sericulture. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that although the petitioner satisfies all eligibility criteria required for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, his case has not been considered due to pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding. He further contended that officers that are junior to the petitioner have been considered and given promotion, ignoring the just and fair claim of the petitioner. In that context, he also referred to the notification dated 15.12.2009 under Annexure-8 which reveals that some officers have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director, Sericulture in the meantime. 9. Learned Addl. Standing counsel on the other hand contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegally. He further contended that after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the case of the petitioner has been duly considered by the State-Opposite Parties and accordingly, the Petitioner has been reinstated in service by treating the period of suspension as “on duty” and accordingly all consequential and financial benefits have been extended in favour of the petitioner in the meantime. So far the promotion to the post of Deputy Director is // 4 // concerned, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that since the petitioner was under suspension and under a Disciplinary Proceeding, his case has not been considered by the Opposite Parties. However, he further contended that, in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion and payment of consequential and financial service benefits arising out of such notional promotion in accordance with law and taking into consideration the O.A. dated 29.05.2020 of the G.A. Department under Annexure-9 to the writ application, within a stipulated period of time, then he will have no objection to the same 10. In such view of the matter, this Court on a careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for both sides and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case and further keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance involved in the present writ application, deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.09.2023 under Annexure-10 to the writ application, if the same is still pending for consideration. Further, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-10 in accordance with law and keeping in view the O.A. under Annexure-9 and pass a final order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Rubi Date: 10-Nov-2023 15:37:26 ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge