Orissa High Court
Employees Provident vs Subash Chandra Parida & .... Opp. ... on 15 September, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23893 of 2025
Employees Provident .... Petitioners
Fund Organization, New
Delhi & others
Mr. Sidharth Shankar Padhy,
Advocate
-versus-
Subash Chandra Parida & .... Opp. Parties
others
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 15.09.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
The petitioners have challenged the order dated
15.01.2025 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in
O.A. No.260/00606 of 2018.
It appears that the opposite party no.1 filed the
Original Application bearing O.A. No.606 of 2018
before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack seeking for following relief:
"In view of the facts stated above, the
Applicant prays for the following relief(s):-
Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to
call for the records and upon hearing the parties be
pleased to quash the order No.HRM-IV(VI)/ 10(35)
2013/SL/PS/10434 dated 06.11.2018 vide Annexure-
A/13 for the ends of justice.
AND
Be further pleased to hold that the Applicant
is entitled to get promotion to the post of Private
Secretary with effect from 02.01.1999 as proposed by
the Respondents vide Annexure-A/5 or in the
alternative be pleased to direct the Respondents to
consider the promotion of the Applicant to the post of
Private Secretary with effect from 14.07.2005 in
terms of Rules 1998 with all arrears out of fixation of
pay in the grade of Private Secretary for the ends of
justice.
AND
Be further pleased to hold that the promotion
of Respondent 4 to 14 with effect from 14.07.1997 to
the post of Private Secretary is bad in law and any
order of promotion given to them individually with
effect from are equally bad in law for the ends of
justice.
AND
Be further pleased to modify the final
seniority list of Private Secretary vide Annexure-A/11
wherein the name of Respondents 4 to 14 were shown
as promoted to the post of Private Secretary on
14.07.1997."
The petitioners filed their counter affidavit and
also filed the additional counter affidavit.
The learned Tribunal, by considering the
pleadings of the respective parties and hearing
learned counsels for both the parties, passed the
following order:
"6. The contention of the applicant is that he is
entitled to get promotion to the post of Private
Secretary as were given to P.S. Jayshree and S.
Sitharthan is not acceptable since at that relevant
time there were given promotion in 1997 when the
posts as well as seniority were being maintained at
Regional level. Since the vacancy to the post of
Private Secretaries were available in Karnataka
Region (in case of P.S. Jayashree) and in Chennai
Region (in case of S. Sitharthan), they were given
promotion to the post of Private Secretary in the
year 1997. It is also seen that the applicant was
not senior as per the regional seniority. Further,
there was only one post of Private Secretary
available in the Odisha Region when the applicant
was found eligible for such promotion but another
employee of Odisha Region, who was senior to the
applicant, was given promotion. Therefore, the
claim of the applicant for granting him promotion
during that period is not tenable.
However, we are also not able to accept the
contention of the respondents that the applicant
could only get promoted to the post of Private
Secretary in the year 2017 after the retirement of
incumbent Private Secretary since only one post of
Private Secretary was available in the Odisha
Region. After formation of All India Seniority in
place of seniority of regional basis, the promotions
ought to have been made based on the All India
Seniority list after considering the suitability of the
employees concerned as per rules. Hence, the case
of the applicant for promotion to Private Secretary
ought to have been considered based on the All
India Seniority list and certainly not on regional
basis. Thus, authentication of the manner of
promotion effected would amount to violation of
rules and law. Accordingly we direct the
respondents to re-exercise the promotion to the
post of PS that was effected regional basis in place
of All India basis within a period of 180 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The main contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in challenging the
impugned order is that the opposite party no.1 has
slept over his right for more than a decade and sought
the relief only after the judgments of different
Benches of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal
including the judgment dated 19.02.2003 of the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi in case Vinod Kumar Grover had not
been implemented qua him. The opposite party no.1 is
precluded from seeking the reopening of the
promotion granted a decade ago under judicial order.
The further contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the opposite party nos.2 to 12, who
are the respondent nos.4 to 14 before the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal got the promotion in
the year 2008 itself and, if the opposite party no.1
had any grievance against such promotion, he ought
to have approached the learned Tribunal in time.
Having not done so, he should not have been granted
the relief by the learned Tribunal.
After going through the impugned order, we find
that though the notices were made sufficient on the
opposite party nos.2 to 12, but they did not prefer to
appear before the learned Tribunal not to contest the
case. The learned Tribunal, in fact, has been pleased
to hold that the contention of the opposite party no.1
that he is entitled to get the promotion to the post of
Private Secretary as were given to P.S. Jayashree and
S. Sitarthan was not acceptable, since at the relevant
time, they were given promotion in the year 1997,
when the post as well as the seniority were being
maintained at the regional level, therefore, the claim
of the opposite party no.1 for granting such promotion
during that period held to be not tenable.
The learned Tribunal has stated in the impugned
order that after formation of the All India Seniority list
in place of regional basis, the promotion ought to have
based on All India Seniority list after considering the
suitability of the employees concerned as per Rule
therefore, the case of the opposite party no.1 for
promotion to the post of Private Secretary ought to
have considered based on All India Seniority list and
certainly not on the regional basis. Accordingly, the
learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners to re-
exercise the promotion to the post of Private
Secretary and that was effected on regional basis in
place of All India seniority basis within a period of 180
days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.1 has retired
and in case as per the order of the learned Tribunal,
he is given some relief, he will be entitled to only
financial relief and thereby it will not affect any of the
opposite party nos.2 to 12 in any manner.
In view of the analysis made in the impugned
order, since the petitioners have been asked to re-
exercise the promotion to the post of Private
Secretary and in that process, there is likelihood that
the opposite party no.1 may get some financial
benefit, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 15-Sep-2025 18:56:13
