Raj Kumar Mohapatra vs Ceo
2026 Latest Caselaw 3267 Ori

Orissa High Court

Raj Kumar Mohapatra vs Ceo on 8 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                WP(C) No. 15527 of 2022
Raj Kumar Mohapatra         .....       Petitioner
                                                 Mr. K.C.R. Mohapatra, Advocate
                                    -versus-
CEO, Khordha Central Co                .....           Opposite Parties
Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr.                            Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate

                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

08.04.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. K.C.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.28.02.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of increment from the year 2016 to 2020 was rejected on the ground that Performance Appraisal Report of the Petitioner for the aforesaid period is not satisfactory and accordingly Petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of increment.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order, contended that there is no such provision under the H.R. Policy-2011, wherein because of non-satisfactory performance, increment can be withheld. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which Petitioner's claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Even though counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Party- Bank justifying the impugned order, but learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank failed to satisfy this Court and also failed to show any document enclosed to the counter affidavit showing that PAR can be taken into consideration for the purpose of withholding of the increment.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and since there is no document enclosed to the counter affidavit showing that PAR is a criteria to be taken into consideration for withholding of increment, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.28.02.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-11. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to release the increment as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner for the year 2016 to 2020 along with the differential entitlement as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack