[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Surendra Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 22879 of 2022
Surendra Kumar Nayak ..... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.03.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Pursuant to order dtd.09.02.2026, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner produced copy of representation dtd.24.02.2020 so
provided by this Court to be considered in W.P.(C) No. 30288 of
2020 by way of a memo in Court. The same be kept in record.
3. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
appearing for the Opp. Parties.
4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
"Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that
the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) a writ of
mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued quashing
the impugned order dated 11.05.2021 passed by the
Government of Odisha in Home Department under
Annexure: 10 so far as the petitioner concerned so also the
observation made in the said order dated 11.05.2021 that
the Assistant Section Officer shall not be entitled to any
financial benefit for the notional period and necessary
direction may be made to the opposite parties to grant
financial benefit to the petitioner for the period from
19.10.2016 till his retirement from service i.e. 31.05.2018
instead of on notional basis as he was illegally deprived of
to get promotion to the post Assistant Section Officer
although he was willing to work against that post keeping
in view the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of
State of Orissa and others Vs Gadadhar Parida and
another (W.P.(C) No.18497 of 2015 disposed of on
14.12.2016), within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court;
(B) And any other order / orders direction / directions may
be issued so as or to give complete relief to the petitioner;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty
bound remain ever pray."
5. It is contended that while continuing as against the post of Sr.
Grade Typist, Petitioner though became eligible and entitled to get
the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Section Officer in the
establishment of Opp. Party No. 2, but Petitioner was deprived to get
such benefit of promotion because of the fraud committed by some
erring Officers. Not only that because of such fraud, ineligible
persons got the benefit of promotion in the year 2016.
5.1. It is contended that Petitioner challenging such action of the Opp.
Parties in not extending the benefit of promotion, though moved the
authorities time and again, but the same was not considered and in
the meantime, he retired from his services on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2018. However, considering the grievance
so raised by the Petitioner and the order passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 30288 of 2020, Petitioner vide office order
dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-10 though was held eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Section
Officer retrospectively w.e.f.19.10.2016 i.e. from the date his juniors
have got the said benefit, but Petitioner was held entitled to get all
such benefit on notional basis.
5.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently
contended that since because of the fraud committed by the erring
officers, which is admitted in order dtd.11.05.2021, Petitioner was
deprived to get the benefit of promotion in the year 2016, Petitioner
cannot be deprived to get the financial benefit on getting the benefit
of promotion w.e.f.19.10.2016. It is accordingly contended that while
interfering with the order so far as extension of the benefit on
notional basis is concerned, this Court may direct the Opp. Parties to
extend the financial benefit for the period 19.10.2016 to 31.05.2018.
6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit so filed. It is contended that since by the time pursuant to
the earlier order of this Court, a review DPC was convened on
07.04.2021 to consider the Petitioner's claim, Petitioner had already
retired on 31.05.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation, he was
given such benefit of promotion on notional basis. Relevant stand
taken in Para 8 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
"Subsequently, a review DSC was convened on 07.04.2021 and
the Select List was recast pertaining to DSC-2016. In the
process of arriving at a recast select list based on CCR
evaluation made afresh followed by the length of service in
feeder grade as per the OCS (Criteria for promotion) Rules,
1992, two candidates namely, Rabindra Kumar Samantara and
the Petitioner who had failed to make it to the final nine
selectees in the earlier select list in the DSC dated 27.09.2016
found a place in the recast select list and two other candidates
namely Prasanta Kumar Das and Ashish Kumar Tripathy, who
had earlier got promotion due for their position in the Select
List, were repositioned at Sl. No. 10 and 11in the recast list in
order of merit, hence were reverted to their respective parent
posts as there were only 09 earmarked ASO vacant posts to be
filled by way promotion/selection by induction method for the
year 2016. As the present petitioner superannuated on
31.05.2018 therefore he was notionally promoted to the rank of
ASO retrospectively, along with Sri Samantara vide the Home
Department Office Order No. 18416 dated 11.05.2021 w.e.f.
19.10.2016, the date their junior one Sri Sushil Kumar
Baliarsingh got promoted and their pay was fixed notionally
under ORSP Rules 2008 and 2017 as per the admissibility.
However, the persons affected were given post-decisional
hearing opportunities in the aforesaid order since they were not
heard earlier. The show-cause replies submitted by the affected
persons pursuant to Home Department Office Order dated
11.05.2021 since found devoid of merit were rejected.
Accordingly, the Order dated 11.05.2021 was made absolute
vide Home Department Office Order No. 20891 dated
11.06.2021."
6.1. It is also contended that since Petitioner never discharged his
duty in the promotional post applying the principle of "no work no
pay", Petitioner cannot be extended with the financial benefit and the
said benefit has been rightly extended on notional basis vide the
impugned order dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-10.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner
while continuing as Sr. Grade Typist in the establishment of Opp.
Party No. 2, since he was deprived to get the benefit of promotion to
the rank of ASO while his juniors got the said benefit
w.e.f.19.10.2016, he made repeated grievance before the authority to
get the benefit.
7.1. However, prior to consideration of such grievance of the
Petitioner, he retired from his service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2018. However, pursuant to the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30288 of 2020, a review DPC
was conducted on 07.04.2021 and basing on the recommendation of
the review DPC, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of
promotion to the rank of ASO retrospectively w.e.f.19.10.2016 i.e.
from the date his juniors got the said benefit, vide the impugned order
dtd.11.05.2021. But benefit of such promotion w.e.f.19.10.2016 was
extended on notional basis.
7.2. This Court after going through the impugned order, finds that
Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion, with the clear
admission that Petitioner was deprived to get the same because of the
fraud committed at the end of Administrative Departments to the
advantage of some officers, not lawfully entitled to get the benefit of
promotion.
7.3. In view of the clear admission made that Petitioner was deprived
to get the benefit of promotion because of fraud committed by the
administration department and ineligible persons get the benefit of
promotion, while extending the benefit of promotion to the Petitioner
vide the impugned order dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-10, this
Court is of the view of the view that, Petitioner should have been
extended with the financial benefit instead of extending the same on
notional basis.
7.4. However, considering the fact that Petitioner prior to getting the
benefit, has already retired on 31.05.2018, this Court while disposing
the writ petition, held the Petitioner entitled to get 50% of the
remuneration in the promotional post for the period from 19.10.2016
to 31.05.2018. This Court accordingly while disposing the writ
petition, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to release 50% of the entitlement
as due and admissible in the promotional post for the period from
19.10.2016 to 31.05.2018 within a period of six (6) weeks from the
date of receipt of this order.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
