Orissa High Court
Giridhari Pattnayak vs State Of Odisha & Others on 10 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) (OA) No.1129 of 2019
Giridhari Pattnayak .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Mohanty Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.10.2023
Order No.
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter
alia with the following prayer:-
"i. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct
the respondent No.2 for promotion of the applicant, to the cadre
of S.I of Police retrospectively from the date of promotion of 98
candidates who got the promotion vide office order
No.1532/EXE dt.27.7.2011 under Annexure-6, in terms of the
judgment dtd.27.09.2012 under Annexure-6, in terms of the
judgment dt.27.09.2012 passed by State Administrative
Tribunal in O.A No.1061 (C)/2011 and batch cases under
Annexure-5, which was subsequently upheld by Hon'ble High
Court vide judgment under Annexure-7 by dismissing W.P.(C)
No.22992 /2012 and W.P.(C) No.12069/ and to grant the
applicant all consequential service and financial benefits.
ii. To grant any relief/ reliefs as deemed fit and proper.
// 2 //
iii. And pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem
fit and proper to the facts of the present case under
consideration".
4. It is contended that for the laches of the Opposite
Parties for not sending him to undergo required ASI training
while sponsoring his junior to undergo such training,
Petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of promotion to the
post of ASI of Police and subsequently to the post of SI of
Police.
4.1. Mr. Mohanty, contended that challenging such illegal
action of the Opposite Parties in not extending him the
benefit of promotion to the post of ASI of police and
subsequently to SI of Police, Petitioner moved the Tribunal in
O.A No.1061 (C)/2011. The Tribunal vide its order
dtd.27.09.2012 disposed of O.A No.1061(C)/2011 along with
a batch. The relevant portion of the order is quoted
hereunder:-
"14. I have already held that the applicants could not be sent for ASI
course of training in the year 2001 owing to the fault of the State
respondents and cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of theirs. As
per the order of the Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal all these
applicants are deemed to be the selectees of the year 2000 along
with the first batch of 98 candidates. Therefore, they should be
deemed to have completed the period of seven years of training when
the first batch of 98 candidates had completed the said course of
training".
4.2. It is contended that the Tribunal while finding fault
with the State-Opposite Parties for not allowing the Petitioner
to undergo the ASI of Training and accordingly could not
accumulate the required 7 years of experience in the rank of
ASI of Police for his promotion to the post of SI of Police,
directed the Opposite Parties to consider his claim by placing
him in the proper place in the seniority list and to extend the
// 3 //
benefit as has been extended in favour of such 98 candidates
who were allowed to undergo the training in the year 2001
and subsequently got the benefit of promotion to the rank of
ASI of Police and SI of Police.
4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
persons junior to the Petitioner were given the benefit
promotion to the rank of SI of Police vide order
dtd.27.07.2011 under Annexure-6. But on the face of the
order passed by the Tribunal, which was confirmed by this
Court in its judgment dtd.09.01.2017 in W.P.(C) No.22992 of
2012 and batch, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get
similar benefits as has been extended in favour of his junior
vide order under Annexure-6. But it is contended that on the
face of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner was
extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of SI of
Police w.e.f. 28.02.2017 vide order dtd.20.06.2017 so passed
under Annexure-9. It is contended that Petitioner had already
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation
w.e.f. 28.02.2017.
4.4. It is contended that the Petitioner in view of the order
passed by the Tribunal so confirmed by this Court is eligible
and entitled to get the benefit of promotion from the date his
juniors were given such benefit vide order dtd.27.07.2011
under Annexure-6 with all service and financial benefits as
due and admissible.
5. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State on the other hand made his submission basing on the
stand taken in the counter affidavit. Though Mr.Panigrahi
// 4 //
does not dispute the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A
No.1661 (C) / 2011 along with batch so confirmed by this
Court in its judgment dtd.09.01.2017, but contended that
since the Petitioner was not having the required 7 years
training qualification after being appointed as ASI of Police,
he was found not eligible to get the benefit of promotion to
the rank of SI of Police from the date such benefit was
extended vide order dtd.27.07.2011 under Annexure-6.
5.1. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner was
not having the required training qualification after being
appointed as against the post of ASI of Police, he was given
such benefits w.e.f. 28.02.2017 vide order dtd.20.06.2017
under Annexure-9. It is accordingly contended that no
further interference is required by this Court to extend the
benefit as prayed for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after
going through the materials available on record, this Court
finds that the Petitioner claiming extension of the benefit of
promotion to the rank of ASI and SI of Police approached the
Tribunal in O.A No.1061(C)/2011. The Tribunal disposed of
O.A. No.1061 (C) of 2011 along with a batch and as found
from the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5, the
Tribunal clearly held that no fault can be attributed to the
Petitioner for his not acquiring the required ASI training and
the required qualifying service of 7 years for the purpose of
getting the benefit of promotion to the rank of SI of Police.
With the said finding, the Tribunal disposed of the Original
Applications by directing the Opposite Parties to assign
// 5 //
proper position to the applicant in the seniority list in
accordance with the principle laid down in the order passed
in O.A. 3036(C)/2003 and O.A. No.3037 (C)/2003. The
Tribunal further directed to consider the case of the
Petitioner for promotion to the rank of ASI of Police in
accordance with the seniority and other relevant factors along
with 98 candidates, who had been declared to have acquired
the training held in the year, 2001. This Court finds that
while preparing such a gradation list vide Annexure-13, the
Petitioner is placed above a person namely Pabitra Kumar
Moharana, who has got the benefit of promotion to the rank
of S.I. of Police vide order dtd.27.07.2011 under Annexure-6.
7. Since while complying the direction of the Tribunal, it
is found that the Petitioner is placed above the person, who
has got the benefit of promotion to the rank of S.I. of Police
vide order dtd.27.07.2011 under Annexure-6, this Court is
also of the view that the Petitioner in view of the order passed
by the Tribunal so confirmed by this Court is eligible and
entitled to get similar benefits of promotion to the rank of SI
of Police from the date order dtd.27.07.2011 was so issued
under Annexure-6. However, while holding so this Court is of
the view that since the Petitioner has retired in the meantime
w.e.f. 28.02.2017, the benefit of promotion to the rank of S.I.
of Police w.e.f. 27.07.2011 be extended in favour of the
Petitioner on notional basis till he attained the age of
superannuation. On such extension of the benefit of notional
basis, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take
appropriate steps for revision of pension and other
pensionary benefits of the Petitioner as due and admissible.
// 6 //
This Court further directs Opposite Party No.2 to release the
differential entitlement of the Petitioner on such revision of
pension and other pensionary benefits. The entire exercise
shall be undertaken and completed by Opposite Party No.2
within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of
this order.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 12-Oct-2023 16:00:49
