Orissa High Court
Kiranbala Swain vs State Of Odisha And Others on 11 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.41966 of 2021
Kiranbala Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. Premananda Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel S. & M.E.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 11.01.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.
2. Heard Mr. Premananda Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the School and Mass Education Department.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
seeking for a direction to the Opposite Parties to extend the benefit of
antedated promotion to the post of Jr.S.E.S. as has been done in
many similar other cases and further the petitioner has prayed for a
direction to the authorities to calculate and pay the differential arrear
dues payable to the Petitioner on such antedated promotion to the
post of Jr.S.E.S..
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that as
per Rule 10-A of Orissa Subordinate Education Service Rules, 1972,
LSES cadre teachers on completion of three years of service with
B.Ed qualification are eligible for promotion to Jr. SES cadre.
Further, as per Rule 10(B)(ii) of the said Rule the selection
committee shall meet once a year ordinarily during the 1st week of
// 2 //
April and prepare a list of persons eligible for appointment by way of
selection under Rule 10-A of the aforesaid rule.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that following the aforesaid Rule, the Orissa Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.1673(C) of 1993 and O.A.
No.1804 of 1998 had given direction to give the benefits as prayed
for by the Petitioner to one Nabin Kumar Khamari and Rabi Narayan
Panda. Similarly in O.A.No. O.A. No.3885(C) of 2012 similar
benefit has also been given to Pratush Kumar Das.
6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the orders passed by the learned Tribunal has attained finality as
the same has not been challenged before any higher forum.
Moreover, the orders passed by the learned Tribunal has also been
given effect to by the Government. The Government of Odisha by
following the law laid down in the aforesaid two cases has extended
similar benefits in numerous other cases.
7. In Binod Kumar Singhal vs. Union of India, reported in
1994(2) SLR 695 it has been decided that departmental promotion
committee is required under the instruction to meet every year such
selecting persons for promotion on regular basis. Vacancy occurring
during the relevant year cannot be clubbed together and as such the
zone of consideration cannot be enlarged.
8. Further the learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of K.
Shephard and others vrs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1988
S.C. 686 and later judgment in the matter of Maharaj Bhatta and
another vrs. State of J.K. and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 24
has laid down the law to the effect that once a decision is rendered by
// 3 //
any court of law and it is implemented by the authorities, such
benefits are to be extended to similarly placed persons.
9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, the Petitioner
has filed a representation dated 14.09.2021 under Annexure-4 before
the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, Opposite Party No.2 and
the same is pending as of now and submits that the authorities be
directed to consider the same in accordance with law within a
stipulated period of time.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the School & Mass
Education department submits that the matter needs to be examined
by the concerned authority whether the Petitioner is entitled to get
such benefit or not. However, he further submits that if a direction is
given to the authority to consider the case of the Petitioner in
accordance with law he will have no objection to that.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the records and various judgments cited before this Court, this
Court disposes of the writ application with a direction to the
Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner
in accordance with law and keeping in view the aforesaid analysis of
law and shall dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of
certified copy/authenticated copy of this order. The decision so taken
shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 10 days
thereafter.
12. With the aforesaid observation the writ application is disposed
of.
13. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID -19 situation
// 4 //
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out
of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with
certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in
the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th
March, 2020, modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April,
2021, and Court's Office Order circulated vide Memo Nos.514 and
515 dated 7th January, 2022.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS
