[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rabindra Kumar Samantara 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. 22878 of 2022
Rabindra Kumar Samantara ..... 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. 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.
3. 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 Annnexure:8 so far as the petitioner is 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 03.06.2021 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 or direction/directions may
be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as
in duty bound remain ever pray."
4. 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.
4.1. 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.
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-8 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.
4.2. 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 03.06.2021.
It is however fairly contended that Petitioner got the financial benefit
in the promotional post w.e.f.04.06.2021.
5. 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, 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."
5.1. 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-8. However,
Petitioner got the actual financial benefit w.e.f.04.06.2021 and the
period from 19.10.2016 to 03.06.2021 was treated on notional basis.
6. 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.
6.1. 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 till
03.06.2021 and actual benefit w.e.f.04.06.2021.
6.2. 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.
6.3. 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-8, 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 for the period 19.10.2016 to 03.06.2021.
6.4. However, this Court while disposing the writ petition and the
fact that Petitioner never discharged his duty in the promotional post
for the period 19.10.2016 to 03.06.2021, held the Petitioner entitled
to get 50% of the entitlement for the period from 19.10.2016 to
03.06.2021. 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
03.06.2021 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
