Orissa High Court
Bhaktamani Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Others on 27 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 4162 of 2013
Bhaktamani Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. Ramesh Sethy on behalf of Mr.
H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Addl. Standing
Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 27.01.2023
Hybrid Mode
04. 1. Though copy of the counter has been filed and
serviced on the learned counsel for the petitioner on
30.01.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a
copy again to be served upon him.
2. When the matter was listed on 23.03.2022,
considering the submissions of the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the State, the following order was
passed:-
"1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. The Original Application having been transferred
from the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack upon its abolition, has
been registered before this Court on 6th December,
2021.
3. On perusal of the available order sheets of the
learned Tribunal it is indicated that the matter was
never taken up after 31.8.2017.
RJ 4. The O.A. was filed in the year 2013 by the
petitioner/applicant when he was 60 years of age
having retired as Head Clerk from the office of
Subdivisional Veterinary Officer, Titilagarh praying
for stepping up of his pay on the ground that he
should have got the benefit of promotion to the post
of Head Clerk by following the "catch-up" principle.
// 2 //
5. It is submitted by learned AGA relying on the
counter filed by the Director (O.P.No.2) on behalf of
OPs.1 & 2 dated 24.1.2017 that since O.P.No.3 got
the promotion to the subsequent higher post, prior
to the date when the petitioner got promotion, the
principle of "catch-up" cannot be applicable in the
facts of the case considering the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja & Ors
vs State Of Punjab & Ors decided on 1st March,
1996 : 1996 AIR 1189 :: JT 1996 (2) 727 :: (1995) 2
SCC 745 and Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of
Punjab & Ors decided on 16 September, 1999 in
Appeal (civil) 3792 of 1989, 1996(2) SCC 215.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner joined in service in the
year 1976 and O.P.No.3 joined in same service in
the year 1977. Both joined as Junior Clerk. O.P.
no.3 got promotion to the post of Senior Clerk
against a roster point vacancy meant for Scheduled
Tribe in the year 1991 and subsequently to the
post of Head Clerk on 16.12.1994, again against a
roster point vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe.
7. It is, therefore, submitted by learned AGA that
since the petitioner got promotion to the post of
Head Clerk on 13.12.2000, he could not have got
any benefit of "catch-up" principle as O.P.No3 had
already got promotion to the next higher level i.e.,
Head Clerk.
8. Learned AGA refers to paragraph-5 of the
counter affidavit which is quoted herein :
"5. That, in reply to Para-6.8 & 6.9 of the
O.A., it is submitted that the ORV Act is
applicable in promotional post up to Junior
Class-I Level. Besides, the Respondent
No.3 has got promotion at two stages
against reserved vacant post of Senior
Clerk and Head Clerk much earlier than
the applicant. When the applicant got
promotion in the cadre of Head Clerk
during 2007, the name of the applicant
was shown above the Respondent No.3 in
the Gradation List communicated during
2013 as the applicant was senior in the
feeder grade. But, retrospective promotion
and stepping up of pay in favour of the
applicant from the date on which the
Respondent No.3 got promotion to the post
of Head Clerk is not applicable at this
stage. In view of the facts stated above,
the prayer of the applicant is devoid of any
merit and liable for rejection."
// 3 //
9. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he will obtain further up-to-date
instruction from the petitioner and may be granted
further time.
10. As prayed for, list on 20.4.2022."
At the instances of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 20.04.2022. On
20.04.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner adjourned
the matter which was to be listed on 04.07.2022. Thereafter
again the matter was adjourned to 22.08.2022. Apparently,
the petitioner is not inclined to pursue the litigation as no
submissions on merit in reply to the counter filed by the
State is coming forth.
Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel
for the petitioner again wants adjournment.
As prayed for, list on 28th February, 2023.
It is indicated that on the next date due to repeated
adjournments by the petitioner without any arguments
being addressed on merit, the Court shall pass appropriate
order.
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
