Orissa High Court
Purna Chandra Panda vs D.G. & I.G. Of Police & .... Opposite ... on 2 January, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAS) No.9 of 2011
An application under Section 19 of the State Administrative
Tribunal's Act, 1985.
..................
Purna Chandra Panda .... Petitioner
-versus-
D.G. & I.G. of Police & .... Opposite Parties
Others
For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Putohit.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. B. Panigrahi,
Addl. Standing Counsel.
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:13.09.2023 and Date of Order: 22.09.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter
alia with the following prayer:-
// 2 //
"(i) Direct the Respondent to release the revised pension as
per the Annexure-5 along with other retrial benefits, quashing
the word 'notionally' as occurring in line 3 of Annexure-2 and
line of Annexure-5.
(ii) Direct the Respondents to pay the Arrears w.e.f. 1.2.99
till 29.9.2001 in D.S.P. Scale.
(iii) And all this Original Application with cost and penal
interest.
(iv) Pass any further order/direction as deemed fit and
proper by your lordships"
4. It is contented that the Petitioner was initially
appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police, where he joined on
01.01.1966. Petitioner subsequently was promoted to the
rank of Inspector of Police. Thereafter, because of the
pendency of a disciplinary proceeding against the
Petitioner, Petitioner was not considered for his promotion
to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and his
claim was kept in a sealed cover. Accordingly, while
continuing as such in the rank of Inspector of Police, Police
Training School, Angul, Petitioner retired from his service
on attainting the age of superannuation on 30.09.2001.
4.1. It is contended that subsequent to his retirement on
30.09.2001 and after closure of the proceeding, Petitioner
though was promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police w.e.f. 08.01.1999 vide Notification dtd.24.07.2002
of Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2, but the
Petitioner was not allowed to get any financial
// 3 //
benefit w.e.f. 08.01.1999 till he attained the age of
superannuation, save and except allowing the said financial
benefit for one day i.e. for 30.09.2001.
4.2. It is contended that because of the pendency of the
proceeding, the Petitioner though was eligible, was not
given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police and the same was kept in a sealed
cover. After his retirement on 30.09.2001 and on closure of
the proceeding, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of
promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
w.e.f. 08.01.1999 vide Notification dtd.24.07.2002 under
Annexure-2.
4.3. It is contended that since the Petitioner was
exonerated from the charges in the proceeding and he was
given the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 08.01.1999 to the rank
of Deputy Superintendent of Police vide Notification
dtd.24.07.2002 under Annexure-2, Petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get all service and financial benefits as due and
admissible w.e.f. 08.01.1999. But Opposite Party No.1
while issuing the notification with extension of the benefit
of promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
under Annexure-2 extended the said benefit notionally
// 4 //
w.e.f. 08.01.1999 and by allowing the financial benefit for
one day only i.e. 30.09.2001.
4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
since the Petitioner could not get the benefit of promotion
because of the pendency of the proceeding and after closure
of the proceeding, the Petitioner was extended with the
benefit, he is eligible and entitled to get the financial benefit
w.e.f. 08.01.1999 and the direction contained in the
Notification dtd.24.07.2002 under Annexure-2 to treat the
same on notional basis w.e.f. 08.01.1999 save and except
allowing financial benefit for one day i.e. 30.09.2001 is not
sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of
this Court.
4.5. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned
counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and
Others vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai. Hon'ble Apex Court in
Para-4 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
"4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that grant of
retrospective benefit on promotional post cannot be given to the
incumbent when he has not worked on the said post. Therefore,
he is not entitled to any benefit on the promotional post from
15.6.1972. In support thereof, the learned counsel invited our
attention to the decisions of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah
& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCC 541], Virender
Kumar, G.M., Northern Railways Vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha
& Ors.[ (1990) 3 SCC 472] , State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. O.P.
Gupta & Ors. [ (1996) 7 SCC 533], A.K. Soumini Vs. State Bank
of Travancore & Anr.[ (2003) 7 SCC 238] and Union of India &
Anr. Vs. Tarsem Lal & Ors. [ (2006) 10 SCC 145]. As against
// 5 //
this, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited our
attention to the decisions given by this Court in Union of India &
Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors.[ (1991) 4 SCC 109], State of
A.P. Vs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors.[ (1999) 4 SCC 181],
Vasant Rao Roman Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1993 Supp. (2)
SCC 324] and State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar Srivastava
[(2006) 9 SCC 621]. We have considered the decisions cited on
behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with regard to
monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned,
that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which
have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental
enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant
full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the
nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases
where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of
doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person
is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or
Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for
reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him
were appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full
benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not.
Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his
due then in that case he should be given full benefits including
monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or
some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to
set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay'
cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions
where courts have granted monetary benefits also. However, so
far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the
Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that
persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly
denied. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted from
retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the
benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he
approached the Court and learned Single Judge did not give him
the monetary benefit of the promotional post from retrospective
effect in terms of arrears of salary. In the review application, the
benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. No. 585 of 1975 i.e.
15.6.1972. This appears to be reasonable. The petitioner did not
approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but he
filed a petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the
benefit from the date of filing of the petition before the Court i.e.
15.6.1972. The incumbent in the meanwhile has retired on
31.7.1980. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be
justified and there is no ground to interfere in it".
5. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the
other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken
in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party. It is
contended that the Petitioner because of the pendency of
// 6 //
the proceeding was not extended with the benefit of
promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
and while continuing in the rank of Inspector of Police,
Petitioner retired from his service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.09.2001. After his retirement and
on closure of the proceeding wherein the Petitioner was
exonerated, the Petitioner was extended with the benefit of
promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
w.e.f. 08.01.1999 vide notification dtd.24.07.2002.
5.1. It is contended that since the Petitioner never worked
and discharged duty in the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police, while being extended with the benefit of
promotion, the same was extended notionally w.e.f.
08.01.1999 and the Petitioner was allowed the financial
benefit for one day i.e. 30.09.2001.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner
never discharged his duty as against the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, he has been rightly allowed the
benefit of promotion w.e.f. 08.01.1999 on notional basis
with financial benefit for one (1) day and the benefit so
extended vide Notification dtd.24.07.2002 under
Annexure-2 needs no interference.
// 7 //
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after
going through the materials available on record, this Court
finds that the Petitioner while continuing in the rank of
Inspector of Police, though he was found eligible for his
promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police,
but he was not given with the said benefit because of the
pendency of the proceeding.
6.1. It is found that while continuing in the rank of
Inspector of Police, the Petitioner retired from his service on
attainting the age of superannuation on 30.09.2001.
Subsequent to his retirement and when the proceeding was
closed with exoneration of the Petitioner from the charges,
Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 08.01.1999. Since
the Petitioner was exonerated from the charges in the
proceeding in question and was extended with the benefit of
promotion w.e.f. 08.01.1999 vide Notification
dtd.24.07.2002 under Annexure-2, as per the considered
view of this Court, the said benefit should not have been
extended on notional basis. However, placing reliance on
the decision so cited by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs.
E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, this Court is of the view that the
Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the financial benefit
// 8 //
w.e.f. 08.01.1999, but @ 50% of the entitlement for the
period from 08.01.1999 to 29.09.2001. While holding so
this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to extend the
financial benefits in favour of the Petitioner as due and
admissible for the period from 08.01.1999 to 29.09.2001 @
50% of the entitlement. The benefit as directed be
sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within
a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this
order.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 22nd of September, 2023/Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
