Lingaraj Choudhury vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8427 Ori

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                      W.P.(C) No. 14123 of 2020

            Lingaraj Choudhury                   .....                        Petitioner
                                                                     Mr. R. Achary, Adv.
                                               -Versus-

            State of Odisha and others           .....                   Opposite Parties
                                                      Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, Addl. Government
                                                                   Advocate for the State
                                                     Mr. Sarat Chandra Dash, (O.P. No.3)
                         CORAM:
                             DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                               ORDER

11.08.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

3. Mr. R. Achary, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the petitioner.

Mr. Ramakanta Sahoo, learned counsel submits that his name and associates be deleted from the cause list as well as from the first page of the brief.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to open the 'sealed cover' and extend the ad hoc promotion to the petitioner in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Purna Chandra Das (W.P.(C) No. 22560 of 2015 disposed of on 29.08.2016) reported in MANU/08/0417/2017, which has been confirmed by the apex Court in SLP (C) No.24104 of 2017, disposed of on 18.07.2019 and also the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Somnath Sahoo, 2016 (II) OLR 1057.

Mr. R. Achary learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the proceeding is continuing from the year 2012 and the meantime 9 years have been passed, there is no justifiable reason not to open the sealed cover for giving the promotional benefits to the petitioner.

Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that the departmental promotion committee was held in the year 2019 and result thereof was kept in a sealed cover and, as such, the same has not yet been published because of pendency of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2012 and, as such, during pendency of the writ petition, though his case was considered for promotion, result thereof was kept in a sealed cover. In Purna Chandra Das mentioned supra, this Court has already considered the above issues, wherein the appointing authority was directed to consider the case the petitioner therein for promotion on ad hoc basis. In the present case, since the case of the petitioner has been considered by the authority and result thereof was kept in a sealed cover, the same has to be opened, as sufficient delay has been caused, in view of the pendency of the proceeding, to get his promotional benefit by the petitioner.

In such view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by opening the sealed cover, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Purna Chandra Das mentioned supra which has been affirmed by the apex Court as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Somnath Sahoo (supra) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication/production of an authenticated/ certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

A.K. Rana