Orissa High Court
Ghasiram Bibhar vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 7 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.9539 of 2025
Ghasiram Bibhar ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Rabindra Kumar
Patnaik
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) P.c.c.f, Odisha, Bbsr Represented By Adv. -
3) Bhaskar Ch Panigrahi Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 07.04.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite-Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue the writ of Mandamus or any
other writ/writs or direction or directions to the Opposite
Party No.1 for promotion to the rank of Forest Ranger with
immediate effect and extending the notional benefits of
promotion with retrospective effect from the date of
promotion his junior (Opp.party no.3) dated on 30.12.2021
keeping in view taking into consideration the
Seniority/Gradation List including all other financial and
consequential benefits within a stipulated time limit and
pass such other Order/orders or direction/directions as this
Hon'ble Court deems just and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that
the petitioner was initially appointed as a Forester on 04.01.1989.
While working as such he was promoted to the rank of Deputy
Ranger on 02.07.2024. The grievance of the petitioner in the present
writ application is that although the petitioner is entitled to promotion
from the date his junior was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger,
however the Opposite Parties have not considered the same and the
petitioner has been given promotion from a date subsequent to the
date on which his junior was given promotion.
5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
further contended that while working as Forester, the petitioner was
entangled in a vigilance case. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner faced trial in vigilance P.S. No.64 of
2009, which corresponds to C.T.R. Case No.5 of 2010. Finally, by
judgment dated 07.12.2023 of the Special Judge Vigilance,
Sambalpur, the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges. Learned
counsel for the petitioner at this juncture further submitted that while
the vigilance case was pending, a DPC meeting was convened and
held on 06.04.2022 for promotion to the rank of the Deputy Ranger
from the rank of Forester. Although the case of the petitioner who
was considered along with other eligible candidates at the DPC
meeting. However, so far the present petitioner is considered, the
sealed cover method was followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that after acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment
dated 07.12.2023, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of
Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 02.07.2024. He further contended that the
name of the petitioner appears at serial No.182 of the gradation list
under Anenxure-1 to the writ application, and the name of his junior,
namely Bhaskar Chandra Panigrahi, who belongs to the SC category
appears at Serial No.190. Further, referring to the promotion order
under Annexure-3, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
one Bhaskar Chandra Panigrahi whose name appears at serial No.190
of the gradation list under Annexure-1 has been given promotion to
the post of Deputy Ranger at Serial No.8. Similarly vide notification
dated 30th December, 2021 under Annexure-4, the abovenamed
Bhaskar Chandra Panigrahi, i.e. Opposite Party No.3, has been given
further promotion to the post of Forest Ranger w.e.f. 30th December,
2021. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that although the petitioner was given promotion by
opening the sealed cover, however, he has not been promotion from
the date his immediate junior was given promotion to the higher
rank. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the opposite parties the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
application.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
the petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 by
filing a representation on 12.02.2025, under Annexure-6 to the writ
application. In the aforesaid context, learned Additional Government
advocate further contended that in the event the representation of the
petitioner under Annexure-6 is still pending before the Opposite
Party No.1, he will have no objection of this Court directs the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner in
accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance involved in the
present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
writ application at the stage of admission by directing the opposite
party No.1 to consider the grievance of the petitioner has involved in
the representation dated 12.02.2025 under Annexure-6 to the writ
application within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of a certified copy of today's order. The
representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a
speaking and reasoned order. It is further directed that while
considering the representation of the petitioner, the Opposite Party
No.1 shall do well to keep in mind the fact that the person who was
junior to him in the gradation list has been given promotion from the
date which is earlier to the date of promotion of the present petitioner
and passing necessary orders in accordance with law. Any final
decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated to the
petitioner within ten days thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
