The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 41241 of 2023 Rabindra Prasad Mishra ..... State of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Petitioner Mr. S. Behera, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 12.11.2025 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
Tribunal as well as by this Court in its order under Annexure-3 and Page 1 of 5. by the Apex Court in its order under Annexure-4, was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer vide order dtd.11.10.2018 under Annexure-5, but w.e.f.21.04.2006. 5.1. It is contended that in view of the nature of order passed under Annexure-5, wherein Petitioner got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer w.e.f.21.04.2006, his claim to get the benefit of further promotion to the rank of Asst. Agriculture Officer from the date his juniors got the said benefit vide notification dtd.22.08.2013 under Annexure-6 should have been automatically extended. However, when such benefit of promotion was not given, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 24173 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.09.08.2023 when directed the authority concerned to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, such claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.24.11.2023 under Annexure-11. 5.2. It is contended that Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of such promotion was rejected only on the ground that Petitioner got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal so confirmed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court vide order under Annexure-5. 5.3. It is contended that since Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer w.e.f.21.04.2006 vide order dtd.11.10.2018 under Annexure-5, Petitioner taking into account the benefit of further promotion given to his juniors to the rank of Asst. Agriculture Officer (Group-B) vide notification dtd.22.08.2013 also became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of promotion from that date. It is accordingly contended that the Page 2 of 5. impugned rejection on the ground indicated is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that since pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, further confirmed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, Petitioner got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer w.e.f.21.04.2006 vide order dtd.11.10.2018 under Annexure-5 and by that time further benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Agriculture Officer had already been extended vide order dtd.22.08.2013, Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected. Stand taken in Para 7 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “That, in reply to averments made in the Paragraph - 7 of the Writ Petition are totally misconceived. It is submitted that the direction of this Hon’ble Court, in W.P.(C) No. 7111 of 2015 was not for giving him promotion to the rank of Assistant Agriculture Officer (AAO) but to the Post of Agriculture Overseer. As submitted above, the direction of this Hon’ble Court in the Order dtd.24.04.2017 and the directions passed in the two Original Applications have been duly complied with long back by giving notional promotion to the Petitioner to the Post of Agriculture Overseer w.e.f.21.04.2006 Vide Order No. 28908, dtd.11.10.2018. The contention of the Petitioner to get further promotion to the rank of AAO is devoid of merit and does not have any basis. In due compliance to the kind Orders of this Hon’ble Court, the Petitioner has been given promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer retrospectively w.e.f.21.04.2006. Promotion to the Post of AAO was neither the subject matter of Order passed in O.A. No.7 of 2014 nor the subject matter of O.A. No.868 of 2015 nor the subject matter of Order passed in W.P.(C) No.7111 of 2015.” Page 3 of 5. 6.1. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, it is found that because of pendency of a proceeding, Petitioner was not given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer. However, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 23.09.2015 in O.A. No. 7 of 2014 and further order passed by the self-same Tribunal on 27.03.2017 in O.A. No. 868 of 2016 under Annexure-1 & 2, Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer w.e.f.21.04.2006 vide order dtd.11.10.2018 under Annexure-5. Petitioner was given the benefit of such promotion after dismissal of
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.24.11.2023 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Agriculture Officer from the date his juniors got such benefit vide order dtd.22.08.2013 under Annexure-6 was rejected. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner because of pendency of a proceeding, was not extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer, when his juniors got the said benefit. However, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 23.09.2015 in O.A. No. 7 of 2014 and further order passed by the self- same Tribunal on 27.03.2017 in O.A. No. 868 of 2016 under Annexure-2, Petitioner after confirmation of the order passed by the
Decision
the writ petition by this Court vide order under Annexure-3 and by the Apex Court vide order under Annexure-4. 7.1. However, it is found that Petitioner by the time was given the benefit of promotion w.e.f.21.04.2006 to the rank of Agriculture Overseer, Petitioner’s juniors have got the benefit of further promotion to the rank of Asst. Agriculture Officer (Group-B) vide notification dtd.22.08.2013 under Annexure-6. 7.2. Since Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer w.e.f.21.04.2006 vide order dt.11.10.2018 under Annexure-5, Petitioner’s claim to the get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Agriculture Officer (Group-B), was required to be considered favourably, if as contended his juniors have got the said benefit vide notification dtd.22.08.2013 under Annexure- 6. Page 4 of 5. 7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while quashing the impugned rejection dtd.24.11.2023 under Annexure-11, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to conduct a review DPC of the DPC, basing on which benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Officer (Group-B) was extended vide notification dtd.22.08.2013 under Annexure-6. If in the said review DPC it will be found that Petitioner’s juniors have got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Agriculture Officer (Group- B), then similar benefit of promotion with consequential service and financial benefit be also extended in favour of the Petitioner, but on notional basis all through as Petitioner has already retired from service. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to complete the entire exercise by conducting a review DPC as directed hereinabove, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. 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: 17-Nov-2025 18:29:45 Page 5 of 5.