Orissa High Court

Debendra Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 4 September, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     W.P.(C) No.7282 of 2024

  In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
                                   ..................

 Debendra Kumar Sahoo                           ....                 Petitioner

                                       -versus-

 State of Odisha and Others                     ....         Opposite Parties


         For Petitioner                    :         Mr. P.K. Mahapatra,
                                                     Advocate

         For Opp. Parties          :           Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC



PRESENT:

     THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date of Hearing:04.09.2025 and Date of Judgment:04.09.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Pursuant to order dated 11.08.2025, learned

counsel for the petitioner files an additional rejoinder

enclosing therein the order allowing TBA Scale of Pay

in his favour. Copy of the additional rejoinder is also // 2 //

provided to the learned Addl. Standing Counsel in

Court.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahapatra, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl.

Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter

alia challenging order dated 08.01.2024, so passed

under Annexure-8 by O.P. No.3. Vide the said order,

claim of the petitioner to antedate the date of

sanction of TBA Scale of Pay w.e.f. 30.03.2006 i.e. on

completion of 15 years of service from the date of his

initial joining as Field Assistant at par with one

Satrughna Sarangi was rejected.

3.1. It is contended that both the present petitioner

and Satrughna Sarangi along with others were

appointed as Field Assistants vide order of

appointment issued on 22.03.1991 under Annexure-

eligible to get the benefit of TBA Scale of Pay on

// 3 //

completion of 15 years of service from his initial date

of appointment i.e. w.e.f. 30.03.2006, but the same

was extended vide office order dated 19.07.2010

w.e.f. 30.03.2008.

3.2. It is contended that since petitioner was

appointed vide order dated 22.03.1991, he became

eligible and entitled to get the benefit of TBA Scale of

Pay on completion of 15 years of service, which falls

on 30.03.2006.

3.3. It is contended that similar benefit of TBA

allowed in favour of Satrughna Sarangi w.e.f.

28.03.2008 in place of 28.03.2006 was the subject

matter of dispute in W.P.C(O.A) No.1945 of 2018.

Sanction of TBA Scale of Pay w.e.f. 28.03.2008 in

place of 28.03.2006 in favour of Satrughna Sarangi

was interfered with by this Court vide order dated

12.12.2022 under Annexure-4 and pursuant to the

said order, Satrughna Sarangi was extended with the

// 4 //

benefit of TBA Scale of Pay w.e.f. 28.03.2006 vide

order dated 19.04.2023 under Annexure-5.

3.4. It is contended that claiming similar benefit

when petitioner moved O.P. No.3 and no action was

taken, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)

No.32847 of 2023. This Court vide order dated

28.11.2023, when directed O.P. No.2 to take a

decision on the petitioner's claim, without proper

appreciation of the same, petitioner's claim was

rejected vide the impugned order dated 08.01.2025

under Annexure-8. While rejecting such claim of the

petitioner, a wrong plea was taken that decision

taken in the case of Satrughna Sarangi cannot be

taken as precedent.

3.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that since the petitioner along with Satrughna

Sarangi was appointed vide order dated 22.03.1991

under Annexure-1 and pursuant to the order passed

by this Court in W.P.C(OA) No.1945 of 2018,

// 5 //

petitioner therein has been extended with the benefit

of TBA Scale of Pay w.e.f. 28.03.2006 on completion

of 15 years of service, similar claim made by the

petitioner could not have been rejected on the

ground indicated in Annexure-8.

3.6. It is contended that since petitioner is similarly

situated as like the petitioner in W.P.C(OA) No.1945

of 2018, in view of the decision in the case of State

of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Arvind Kumar

Srivastav and Others (2015) 1 SCC 347), petitioner

is eligible and entitled to get the similar benefit.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-22 and 23 has held as

follows:-

"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.

22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated

// 6 //

persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

22.2. However, this principle is subject to well- recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.

23. Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find that the selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated 22-6- 1987. The respondents before us did not challenge these cancellation orders till the year 1996 i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996 only after finding that some other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to

// 7 //

the parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not joined service nor working like the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only was there unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim petition after a period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appellants to give them appointment as of today i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above."

3.7. It is also contended that following the aforesaid

decision in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastav,

this Court in W.P.(C) No.4451 of 2023 has held as

follows in Para-6.1:-

"6.1. Since Petitioner is similarly situated and was appointed along with the beneficiary of order under Annexure-11, placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastav as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is also entitled to get similar benefit."

3.8. Making all these submissions, it is contended

that the impugned order needs interference of this

Court with a direction on the O.P. No.3 to extend the

benefit of TBA Scale of Pay in favour of the petitioner

w.e.f. 30.03.2006 in place of 30.03.2008.

4. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

on the other hand made his submission basing on

// 8 //

the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is

contended that in view of the office Memorandum

issued by the Finance Department on 29.01.2022

under Annexure-A/1, petitioner is not eligible and

entitled to get the benefit of TBA Scale of Pay on

completion of 15 years of service from his initial date

of appointment. Stand taken in Para-5 of the counter

reads as follows:-

"5. That. in reply to the averments made in paragraphs-1 to 6 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that Rule 8 of the ORSP Rules, 1998 stipulates that the employees on completion of 15 years of service in a post/ grade as on 01.01.1996 or thereafter shall be entitled to time bound advancement (TBA) scale. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Field Assistant by the Opp. Party No.3 i.e. the Director of Textiles, Odisha. After completion of two years from the date of joining as Field Assistant the Petitioner wa.s designated as Senior Tassar Assistant w.e.f. 30.3.1993. Subsequently, he was promoted to the Post of Technical Inspector on dated 28.09.2013. Therefore, the post / grade of the petitioner has been changed w.e.f. 30.03.1993.

Keeping in view the above, the Opp. Party No.3 has allowed the TBA benefit in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.03.2008 taking into account the date 30.03.1993, i.e. the date from which the petitioner was re-designated as Senior Tassar Assistant with financial benefits as per Rules. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for benefit under Time Bound Advance Scale of Pay with effect from 30.03.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the Govt. of Odisha, Finance Department through its office memorandum No.PCC-163/2001- 4314/F on 29.01.2002 has clarified in Clause-(ii) of Para-2 that:-

// 9 //

"the period of completion of 15 years of service in a post or grade is to counted with reference to the post held, if there is no up gradation in the scale of pay of that post or the incumbent has not moved to a higher scale of pay because of acquiring higher qualification. However, if the incumbent after acquiring higher qualification has moved to a higher scale of pay, even though holding the same designation, 15 years for the purpose of Time-bound Advancement Scale would be counted from the date on which the incumbent has moved to such higher scale would be counted from the date on which the incumbent has moved to such higher scale of pay because of acquiring higher qualification."

4.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the

stipulation contained in Finance Department Office

Memorandum dated 29.01.2002, petitioner is not

eligible and entitled to get the benefit of TBA Scale of

Pay on completion of 15 years of service from his

initial date of appointment and such claim has been

rightly rejected vide the impugned order under

Annexure-8.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

considering the submissions made, this Court after

going through the records, finds that the petitioner

along with some other persons which includes one

Satrughna Sarangi were appointed as Field Assistant

vide order dated 22.03.1991 under Annexure-1. As

// 10 //

found from the record, petitioner was extended with

the benefit of TBA Scale of Pay w.e.f. 30.03.2008 vide

office order dated 19.07.2010 under Annexure-11.

5.1. It is found from the record that similar benefit

of TBA Scale of Pay extended in favour of Satrughna

Sarangi w.e.f. 28.03.2008 in place of 28.03.2006 was

interfered with by this Court in its order dated

12.12.2022 in W.P.C(OA) No.1945 of 2018 under

Annexure-4. As found from the record, extension of

TBA Scale of Pay in favour of Satrughna Sarangi was

modified to 28.03.2006 vide order dated 19.04.2023

under Annexure-5.

5.2. Since similar benefit of TBA Scale of Pay has

been extended on completion of 15 years of service

w.e.f. 28.03.2006 in favour of Satrughna Sarangi,

who is similarly situated as like the petitioner having

been appointed vide order dated 22.03.1991, it is the

view of this Court that petitioner could not have been

// 11 //

discriminated on the ground indicated in the

impugned order under Annexure-8.

5.3. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of

Arvind Kumar Srivastav so followed by this Court

in its order passed in W.P.(C) No.4451 of 2023, it is

the view of this Court that the impugned order is not

sustainable in the eye of law and the same is

required to be quashed. While quashing order dated

08.01.2024 so passed by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-

8, this Court directs O.P. No.3 to extend the benefit

of TBA Scale of Pay in favour of the petitioner w.e.f.

30.03.2006.

5.4. On such extension of the benefit of TBA Scale of

Pay w.e.f. 30.06.2006, consequential follow up action

be taken to revise the pay of the petitioner all

through but on notional basis. This Court directs

O.P. No.3 to pass a fresh order as directed, within a

period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this

order.

// 12 //

6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.