The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 37508 of 2023 Nilamani Mangaraj & Ors. ..... State of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Petitioners Dr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 17.09.2025 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to issue rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Opp. Parties should not be directed to sanction and release Section Officer (Level-II) scale of pay of Rs 1640-60-2600-EB-75- 2900 from 24/07/1989 petitioners and promote petitioners Nos- 4, 5 and the husband of the petitioner No-6 to the rank of Sections Officer(Level-I) from 16/12/2003, the date in which
Legal Reasoning
before this Court in CONTC No. 2601 of 2019 seeking compliance of order dtd.14.02.2019 of this Court. This Court vide order dtd.06.03.2023 under Annexure-5 series passed the following order:- Page 3 of 8. “2. In compliance to the order dated 27.02.2023, compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, wherein at paragraph-4, it has been stated as follows:- “4. That, it is submitted that the learned OAT Vide common
Arguments
Smt. Sukanti Mohapatra and Jyoti Ranjan Das junior to the petitioners got the said promotions with all consequential and financial benefits till their respective retirement and direct the Opp. Parties to re-fix the pay and revise the pension of the petitioners accordingly, and pay the petitioners differential Page 1 of 8. arrear salary as well as arrear pensions with revised pension/family pension with interest within a reasonable period. And further be pleased to modify the order dated 03.03.2023 at Annexure -5 granting promotion on notional basis and declare that the petitioners including the husband of petitioners No-6 are entitled to get actual financial benefits as has been extended to Jyoti Ranjan Das junior to the petitioners. And issue any other writ/writs or direction/directions as would be necessary in the interest of justice; And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause, the rule be made absolute. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioners along with others when were superseded by one Sukanti Mohapatra, all of them approached the Tribunal challenging the promotion extended in favour of Sukanti Mohapatra in O.A. No. 1255(C)/1993. The Tribunal vide order dtd.01.05.2000 under Annexure-2, disposed of the Original Application inter alia with the following observation and direction:- “Since the promotion of respondent No. 3 to the rank of Section Officer Level-II was given faultily, when there were a large number of seniors above her in the rank of Sr. Assistants, by properly balancing the State interests and the interests of a single employee and those of her seniors, we would deem it appropriate to direct that the case of respondent No. 3 for promotion to the rank of Section Officer Level-II shall be considered afresh by a D.P.C. by taking into consideration all relevant aspects, such as Page 2 of 8. eligibility standards zone of consideration, criteria for promotion, reservation rules prevalent at that time, cases of all seniors who were in the grade of Sr. Assistants and were eligible at that relevant time and then, if found suitable, she shall be given the said promotion with effect from 21.07.1989 against the post counted in letter No. 41420/HUD dated 10.11.1993 (annexure-10 of the rejection of applicants)within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in proper compliance with the directions of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court referred to (supra). Till then her promotion to the said rank (Section Officer Level-II) shall be treated as ad hoc at her present level of pay and allowances” 4.1. It is further contended that the order passed by the Tribunal was never assailed by the State Machinery and instead it was challenged by the aforesaid Sukanti Mohapatra in OJC No. 5015 of 2000. However, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dtd.14.02.2019 under Annexure-3. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that after such dismissal of the writ petition vide order dtd.14.02.2019 and basing on the recommendation of the review DPC, Petitioners along with one Jyoti Ranjan Das were given the benefit of promotion vide order dtd.03.03.2023, but on notional basis w.e.f.24.07.1989 under Annexure-4. 4.3. It is contended that claiming extension of the financial benefit instead of notional benefit, one of the beneficiary of the Tribunal’s order as well as order dtd.03.03.2023, filed a Contempt Petition
Decision
Order dtd.01.05.2000 disposed of O.A. Nos. 1255(C) of 1993 & 1875 (C) of 1993.Relevant portion of the common Order dtd.01.05.2000 are extracted hereunder for ready reference: xxx xxx xxx “27 …………… Since the promotion of respondent No.3 to the rank of Section Officer Level II was given faultily, when there were a large number of seniors above her in the rank of Sr. Assistants, by properly balancing the State interests and the interests of a single employee and those of her seniors, we would deem it appropriate to direct that the case of respondent No.3 for promotion to the rank of Section Officer Level-II shall be considered afresh by a D.P. C. by taking into consideration all relevant aspects, such as, eligibility standards, zone of consideration, criteria for promotion, reservation rules prevalent at that time, cases of all seniors, who were in the grade of Sr. Assistants and were eligible at that relevant time and then, if found suitable, she shall be given the said promotion with effect from 24.07.1989 against the post created in letter No.41420/HUD dated 10.11.1993 (Annexure-10 of the rejoinder of applicants) within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in proper compliance with the directions of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court referred to (supra). Till then her promotion to the said rank (Section Officer, Level-II) shall be treated as ad hoc at her present level of pay and allowances.” Page 4 of 8. 3. In the said paragraph, reference has been made to the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal dated 01.05.2000 in O.A. Nos. 1255 (C) No. 1993 and 1875 (C) 1993, whereby the Tribunal directed to extend the benefit of promotion with effect from 24.07.1989 against the post created in letter dated 10.11.1993. No-where, the Tribunal directed to extend the benefit of notional promotion. The Tribunal is conscious that the mistake has been committed by the State Authorities while considering the promotion of the petitioner and therefore, directed that the benefit has to be extended in terms of the judgment, which has also been made confirmed by this Court. Now in the compliance affidavit, opposite party no.2 has annexed a document under Annexure-C/2 stating that the benefit has been extended in favour of the petitioner allowing notional benefit to the rank of section officer (Level-II) in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900/- with effect from 24.07.1989. Thereby, it is contended that the order of the tribunal has been complied with. It appears that the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with in its letter and spirit since no-where in the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has directed for extension of notional benefit to the petitioner. 4. At this time, Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocates wants to take instruction in this matter. 5. Call this matter on 21.03.2023.” 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that basing on such order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Contempt Petition on 06.03.2023, in modification of order dtd.03.03.2023, the aforesaid Jyoti Ranjan Das was extended with the financial benefit with pay fixation from 24.07.1989 vide order dt.12.03.2023 under Annexure-6. Differential amount to the tune of Rs.5,49,489/- was also released as reflected in order dt.21.03.2023 of this Court under Annexure-5 series. However, on the face of such extension of the Page 5 of 8. benefit in favour of Jyoti Ranjan Das, one of the beneficiary of the order passed by the Tribunal as well as order dtd.03.03.2023 under Annexure-4, Petitioners is yet to be extended with similar benefit. It is accordingly contended that similar benefit be extended as has been extended in favour of Jyoti Ranjan Das vide order dtd.12.03.2023 under Annexure-8. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand placing reliance on the counter affidavit, contended that after disposal of the matter by the Tribunal vide order dtd.01.05.2000, when the same was challenged by the Private Opp. Party therein in OJC No. 5015 of 2000, this Court granted an interim order staying the operation of the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dtd.14.02.2019 under Annexure-3. After such dismissal of the writ petition, Petitioners along with other applicants in O.A. No. 1255(C) of 1993 and 1875(C) of 1993, were extended with the benefit of promotion w.e.f.24.07.1989 i.e. from the date Sukanti Mohapatra got the said benefit vide order dtd.03.03.2023 under Annexure-4. However, such benefit was extended on notional basis. 5.1. It is contended that subsequently when one of the beneficiary filed a Contempt Petition before this Court in CONTC No. 2601 of 2019, the said beneficiary namely Jyoti Ranjan Das was extended with the benefit as claimed by the present Petitioners in the present writ petition vide office order dtd.12.03.2023 under Annexure-8. It is contended that since the order passed by the Tribunal remained stayed till it was dismissed vide order dtd.14.02.2019, Petitioners have been rightly extended with the benefit on notional basis. Page 6 of 8. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioners along with others when were discriminated with regard to getting the benefit of promotion vis-(cid:224)-vis the Private Opp. Party, O.A. No. 1255(C) of 1993 and 1875(C) of 1993 were filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dtd.01.05.2000 while holding that such benefit has been extended wrongly in favour of the Private Opp. Party therein, but without disturbing the promotion of the said Private Opp. Party directed for extension of similar benefits to the applicants of the O.A.. 6.1. As found, such an order was never assailed by the State. However, challenge made to the said order by the Private Opp. Party therein OJC NO. 5015 of 2000, was ultimately dismissed vide order dtd.14.02.2019 under Annexure-3. After such dismissal of the writ petition vide order dtd.03.03.2023 Petitioners along with the other applicants in both the O.As., were extended with the benefit of promotion w.e.f.24.07.1989, but on notional basis. But as found from the record basing on an order passed in CONTC No. 2601 of 2019, one of the beneficiary namely Jyoti Ranjan Das has been extended with the benefit as claimed in the present writ petition vide order dtd.12.03.2023 under Annexure-8. 6.2. Since the benefit extended in favour of the aforesaid Jyoti Ranjan Das vide order dtd.12.03.2023 under Annexure-8 and claim made by the Petitioners are similar in nature, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is entitled to get similar benefit. Therefore, while disposing the writ petition, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to extend similar benefit as has been extended in favour of Jyoti Ranjan Das vide order dtd.12.03.2023 under Annexure-8. This Court directs Opp. Party No. Page 7 of 8. 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such extension of the benefit, consequential follow up action be taken to extend the differential financial benefit as due and admissible also. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 16:37:42 Page 8 of 8.