Orissa High Court
Chhabi Pradhan 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.9537 of 2025
Chhabi Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Jayananda Jena
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) The Director Of Horticulture, Bbsr Represented By Adv. -
Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the
following prayers:-
"It is therefore humbly prayed that your Lordship
be pleased to admit the Writ Application, issue RULE NISI
calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause and if the
Opposite Parties fails to show cause or shows insufficient
cause, issue appropriate writ, direction and order
directing the Opposite Parties to pass appropriate Orders
of antedated promotion to the rank of Field Technician
and to the rank of Horticulture Overseer in favour of the
Petitioner with all the financial and consequential benefits
within a time frame;
And pass such other Order and Orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner is eligible to get antedated promotion as has been held by this
Court in W.P.(C) No.17013 of 2006, which was disposed of by Division
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.11.2010. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the case of the
Petitioner is also covered by the decision of this Court in WPC(OA)
No.1612 of 2019 disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2023. It is further
submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid two orders, the Government has
already extended such benefits to similar situated candidates.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by filing a
representation on 12.03.2025 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is
further submitted that no decision has been taken on such representation
as of now.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that since the
Petitioner had already approached the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for
redressal of his grievance by filing a representation, he has no objection
in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to take a
decision in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.
6. Considering such submission made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and upon a careful examination of
the writ petition as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the
Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to take a decision on the representation of
the Petitioner dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-6 within a period of
two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this
order by the Petitioner. It is further directed that while taking decision
as has been directed hereinabove, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall
do well to take into consideration the aforesaid noted two orders passed
by this Court and also keeping in mind the fact that such benefits has
been extended to the similar situated persons. In the event the Petitioner
stands similar footing with the Petitioner in the above noted two cases,
the authorities shall do well to extend such benefits to the Petitioner
within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision. The
decision so taken be also communicated to the Petitioner within two
weeks from the date of taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
