[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others on 7 January, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No. 3381 of 2024
Dillip Kumar Sahoo .... Appellant
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Dinesh Ku. Panda, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
Represented by Adv._
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 07.01.2026
(Hybrid mode)
05. 1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the
judgment dated 5th November, 2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge, in W.P.(C)(OAC) No.1714 of 2017.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner
joined as a Forester on 29.05.1979. He was terminated after
working for some time. He again joined as a Lower Division Clerk
on 22.09.1979, continued as a Forester w.e.f. 09.08.1980 and
appointed as a Forester Extension Officer and joined on
11.02.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as a Villager
Forest Worker on ad-hoc basis, and he joined on 03.12.1986
pursuant to office order dated 01.12.1986.
3. Thereafter, basing on the decision of the Government in
the Department of Forest & Environment dated 10.02.2009, the
cadre of Village Forest Worker was merged with the cadre of
Forester, his place was at Sl. No.67 in the gradation list of
Foresters dated 01.01.2014.
4. Thereafter, pursuant to the proceeding and
recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, the
petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Ranger by office
order dated 03.06.2014 and thereafter being found suitable by the
subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee, he was promoted
as Forest Ranger vide office order dated 31.03.2016.
5. Then the appellant-petitioner was reverted from
promotional post of Forest Ranger by office order dated
27.06.2017, he approached the learned Orissa Administrative
Tribunal (since abolished), challenging said order of reversion.
6. The learned Tribunal passed interim order of status-quo
dated 07.07.2017. It is stated in the writ application and also
observed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was
allowed to continue as Forest Ranger till he attained age of
superannuation and retired on 31.01.2019.
After abolition of the learned Tribunal, the matter was
transferred to this Court and registered as writ petition, which has
been disposed of by the judgment dated 05.11.2024.
7. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the
appellant-petitioner, after considering the matter in detail that
while the appellant-petitioner was imposed civil consequence of
reverting him from the promotional post and deleting his name
from the gradation list, principles of natural justice were not
complied with. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has set aside
the order of reversion.
8. The appellant-petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the
order wherein, it has been directed that :
"... ... while quashing the same, this Court remits the
matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision. In
order to avoid delay, Petitioner is directed to file his
objection with regard to his reversion to the post of Deputy
Ranger within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. On receipt of such objection,
Opposite Party No.1 shall take a fresh decision taking into
account the observation made by this Court and
communicate the result thereof to the Petitioner."
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioner that there was no scope for any proceeding to be initiated
afresh against the appellant-petitioner for reverting him. The
appellant-petitioner was given promotion by the order of the
authority. His position in the gradation list nor his promotion was
ever challenged by any of the other incumbents in his cadre. The
authority has suo moto reverted without following principles of
natural justice i.e. without giving any opportunity of hearing and
without any apparent reason.
10. It is further submitted that the case of the respondents-
opposite parties before the learned Single Judge is also that the
petitioner retired while working in the post of Forest Ranger, on
attaining the age of superannuation.
11. Issue notice.
12. The learned Additional Government Advocate upon
advance copy served appears on behalf of the respondents-State,
no further notice be issued.
Liberty to mention.
13. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. He reiterates his
submissions as noted above.
He further submits that the appellant-petitioner while
working as Forest Ranger, has retired from Government service
and he is only getting provisional pension. Therefore, the part of
the order of learned Single Judge, directing the authority to take
decision afresh regarding reversion after the order directing
reversion is set aside, needs to be stayed as it would cause
immense prejudice to the appellant-petitioner.
The learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently
opposes the prayer for interim order.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned Additional Government Advocate, considering the facts
and submissions as we have noted above, it is directed that there
shall be stayed of operation of the judgment dated 05.11.2024
passed in W.P.(C)(OAC) No.1714 of 2017 until further orders.
15. The I.A. is disposed of.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
Signed by: NARAYAN HO (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Location: OHC Judge.
Date: 08-Jan-2026 10:49:37
Narayan/Ranjeeta
