Orissa High Court
Sanghamitra Mishra vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 12 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.13398 of 2025
Sanghamitra Mishra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Nihal Rath, S.j.prakash
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Principal Secretary To Govt., Represented By Adv. -
Home Dept., Odsha Mr. J.K.Bal, A.G.A.
3) Special Secretary To Govt., G.a.
And P.g. Dept., Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 12.05.2025
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, most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Admit
the writ application, to issue rule Nisi calling
upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why
the prayers made hereunder be not allowed. Upon
showing insufficient cause/ no cause make the
said Rule absolute. Issue writ/ writs in the nature
of
i. Mandamus directing the 0pp. parties to recast
final gradation list dtd. 07.12.2021 under
Annexure 10 and revised gradation list dtd.
06.01.2022 under Annexure 11 of Section Officers
in the common cadre of Section officers of Heads
of Department in term of Establishment Officers'
Recruitment Rules 2019 so also the final
gradation list of establishment officer dt.
19.1.2023 under Annexure-12 by deleting the
parameter of "Year of advertisement in such
gradation lists declaring the same to be in
contravention to G. A. & PG Resolution dtd.
9.9.2021 under Annexure 9 and decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dtd. 19.11.2019 in K.
Meghachandra Singh V. Ningam Siro and others
reported in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019.
ii. To grant the consequential service and
financial benefit to the petitioners after revising
their position in the gradation list.
iii. And/or may pass such other writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble
Court may think fit and proper for the ends of
justice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended
that initially the petitioner joined as Junior Assistant on
08.04.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the rank
of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 13.08.2004 and to the post of Section
Officer on 28.05.2019. While working as such the petitioner
was given further promotion to the rank of Establishment
Officer on 30.04.2022.
5. While working as an Establishment Officer a final
gradation list of Section Officer was published in respect of the
different heads of department on 24.06.2020 in which the name
of the petitioner finds place at serial No.317. Another final
gradation list which was published on 07.12.2021 the name of
the petitioner finds place at serial No.130. He further contended
that the final gradation list dated 07.12.2021 was further revised
vide order No. 543 dated 06.01.2022 in which the name of the
petitioner was placed against serial No.132. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further contended that in view of the gradation list
dated 19.01.2023 the name of the petitioner finds place in such
gradation list of Establishment Officer at Serial No.95. He
further contended that the petitioner is going to retire by end of
this month i.e. 31.05.2025 has approached this Court with a
prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to prepare the
correct final gradation list by giving emphasis to the year of
advertisement instead of date of joining of individual
candidates. In the aforesaid context learned counsel for the
petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in Sudhansu
Sekhar Mohanty and others vs. State of Odisha and others
decided in W.P.(C) No.11683 of 2022 and batch of other cases
vide a common judgment dated 28.03.2025. He further
submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by
the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment delivered by a
coordinate bench of this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that the petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties
before approaching this Court by filing the present writ
application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
State contended that the petitioner be directed to approach the
Departmental Authority first with a corresponding direction to
the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioner in
accordance with law and he will have no objection to the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background
facts the documents annexed to the writ application, further
keeping in view the law laid down in the abovenoted the
judgment in Sudhansu Sekhar Mohanty's case to dispose of
the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty
to the petitioner to approach the opposite parties by filing a
detailed representation within a week from today along with a
copy of today's order. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party
No.1 shall do well to consider and dispose of the representation
of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order
within a period of six weeks. While considering the
representation of the petitioner the Opposite Party No.1 shall
take into consideration the law laid down by a coordinate bench
of this Court in Sudhansu Sekhar Mohanty's case. The final
decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within a
week thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Page 4 of 4.
