Orissa High Court
Ganeswar Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C)(OAC) No.2119 of 2010
Ganeswar Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
(Opp. Party No. 3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.10.2023
Order No
10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.
B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opp. Parties and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for
the Opp. Party No. 3.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"The Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow
the original application, quash the orders under Annexures-
6, 7 & 9 passed by respondent no. 3 and 1 respectively, and
fix his basic pay in the promotional post from 16.06.2000 as
per the order under Annexure-3, the recovered amount be
paid and direct to re-fix the pension of the applicant in the
// 2 //
basic scale of pay of Rs. 13,900/- on the date of
superannuation or in alternate accept his option to take
promotional scale of pay after on 01.05.2001 and pass such
other or further order or orders as are deemed just and
proper."
4. It is contended that while continuing as an Executive Engineer
(Agriculture), Southern Zone, Berhampur, Petitioner was promoted
to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture (Engineer) in the scale
of 10,650/--325-15,850/- vide order dtd.25.04.2000 under
Annexure-1. Subsequently vide order dtd.27.10.2000 under
Annexure-3 pay of the Petitioner was fixed at Rs. 13,575/- in the
aforesaid scale of pay of Rs. 10,650/- to 15,850/-.
4.1. It is contended that in terms of the order issued under
Annexure-1 coupled with the order at Annexure-3 Petitioner
received his salary with pay of Rs. 13,575/- in the scale of pay of
10,650/- to 15,850/-. However, without assigning any reason and
without providing any opportunity of hearing the scale of pay of the
Petitioner was reduced and it was fixed in the pay band of Rs.
9,325/- to 14,550/- vide order dtd.10.06.2002 under Annexure-6.
While implementing the said order Petitioner was allowed the
benefit of pay of Rs. 13,575/- w.e.f.01.11.2000 in place of the
benefit, which was already extended in his favour w.e.f.16.06.2000
vide order dtd.27.10.2000 under Annexure-3. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner contended that against such order passed under
Annexure-6 & 7 though the Petitioner represented to the Govt.
seeking modification of the order in question, but that was also
rejected vide order at Annexure-9.
// 3 //
4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the
Petitioner was allowed the scale of pay of Rs. 10,650/- to 15,850/-
and his pay was is fixed at Rs.13,575/- in that scale
w.e.f.16.06.2000 vide order dtd.27.10.2000 under Annexure-3, the
same should not have been reduced in the pay band of Rs. 9,325/-
to 14,550/- vide order dtd.10.06.2002 under Annexure-6 and
subsequently while fixing the pay at Rs. 13,575/-, the date of
entitlement should not have been taken as 01.11.2000. It is
contended that since prior to reducing such pay of the Petitioner,
Petitioner was never given an opportunity of hearing and even
though the Petitioner made repeated application seeking
modification of the said order, but the same was rejected without a
non-speaking order vide Annexure-9. It is contended that not only
principle of natural justice was violated but also the rejection of the
Petitioner's claim vide Annexure-9 is without any reason. It is
accordingly contended that the order at Annexure-9 be set aside as
it has been passed without assigning any reason and matter be
remitted to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the
Petitioner's claim.
4.3. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court
reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and 2012(1) OLR-87.
4.4. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment reported in
2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-
"8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain
any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the
tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must
// 4 //
pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its
conclusion are based.
10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
introduces clarity in an order and without the same it
becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar
(2003) 11 SCC 510]".
4.5. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported in 2013
(Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:-
"13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter
and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA
Rules, we are constrained to hold that the learned
Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter.
The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of
application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be
remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders.
Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual
infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the
affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper
the proper administration of justice. The orders of the
Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in
granting or declining the relief claimed by the
Petitioner".
5. Mr. Panigrahi as well as Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for
the Opp. Parties have got no serious objection to the course of
action proposed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made and after going through the
materials available on record, it is found that against the office
order rdtd.10.06.2002 so passed under Annexure-6 and subsequent
order dtd.24.07.2003 so passed under Annexure-7 though the
Petitioner approached the Opp. Party No. 1 seeking modification of
that order, but Opp. Party No. 1 rejected the claim vide order
dtd.28.01.2004 under Annexure-9 without assigning any reason.
// 5 //
6.1. Since reason is the soul of any order and Opp. Party No. 1 has
not assigned any such reason while rejecting the claim, on that
ground only this Court is inclined to quash the order at Annexure-9
for the present. While quashing the same, this Court remits the
matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision and decide the
claim of the Petitioner afresh in accordance with law. Such exercise
be undertaken and completed within a period of three (3) months
from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Oct-2023 18:26:57
