Niranjan Patra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2306 Ori

Orissa High Court

Niranjan Patra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         W.P.(C) Nos.16167 & 16168 of 2022

      In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
  Constitution of India.
                            ..................

        Niranjan Patra                               ....               Petitioner

                                                 -versus-

        State of Odisha & Ors.                       ....              Opposite Parties


       For Petitioners        :       Mr. U.K. Samal, Sr. Advocate
                                            along with
                                     Mr. M.R. Mohapatra, Advocate


       For Opp. Parties :             Mr. S.P. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel


PRESENT:

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date of Hearing: 12.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 12.03.2026
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Pursuant to order dtd.23.02.2026, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for

the Petitioners taking this Court to Annexure-4, contended that both the // 2 //

Petitioners were appointed as VAW with their date of joining as

06.07.1988 in the cadre of VAW.

3. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner along with Mr. M.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel and Mr. S.P.

Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

4. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical, both the

matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common

order.

5. Both the writ petitions have been filed inter alia challenging the

rejection of the Petitioners' claim to get the promotion to the rank of

Agriculture Overseer from the date one Bhramarbar Sethi was so

promoted with extension of the benefit w.e.f.31.05.2001.

6. It is contended that that both the Petitioners were initially engaged as

Field Man Demonstrators (FMDs) in the Department of Agriculture.

However, after re-organization of existing Agricultural Extension Set up

in the State as per the recommendation made by the World Bank, both

VLW and Field Man Demonstrator, were treated as having belong to one

cadre in the rank of Village Agriculture Worker (VAW) vide resolution

dtd.06.01.1977 under Annexure-1.

// 3 //

6.1. It is however contended that in terms of the resolution issued under

Annexure-1, Such Field Man Demonstrator and Village Level Worker

(VLW) were required to undergo the upgradation training for their

encadrement in the cadre of Village Agriculture Worker (VAW). It is

contended that both the Petitioners acquired the upgradation training,

which is a requirement for being encadred in the rank of VAW in the

year 1983 and the aforesaid Bhramarbar Sethi in the year 1990.

6.2. It is further contended that after completion of such upgradation

training, both the Petitioners were appointed in the rank of VAW, where

they joined on 06.07.1988. Similarly, after completion of the

upgradation training by Bhramarbar Sethi on 31.12.1990, he was brought

over to the cadre of VAW w.e.f.01.01.1991.

6.3. It is contended that even though Petitioners were appointed in the

cadre of VAW with their date of joining as 06.08.1987 and that of

Bhramarbar sethi as 01.01.1991, but when the said Bhramarbar Sethi

was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer

w.e.f.31.05.2011 ignoring the claim of the Petitioners, who are

admittedly senior to Bhramarbar Sethi in the cadre of VAW, Petitioners

raised their grievance and thereafter approached the State Administrative

Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos. 3915 (C) of 2011 and 3916(C) of 2014.

// 4 //

Both the original applications on being transferred to this Court were

disposed of vide order dtd.15.02.2022 inter alia with similar direction,

which reads as follows:-

"1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the State.

3. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the Petitioner has retired from service in the meanwhile on attaining the age of superannuation. He further submits that the Petitioner claims parity in getting the service benefits as has been given to another similarly placed person, namely, Bhramarbar Sethy. Petitioner and Bhramarbar Sethy were similarly placed and they had completed training in the year 1983 at the same time and that said Bhramarbar Sethy has been given promotion to the post of Agriculture Overseer and the Petitioner had not been given promotion. He further submits that service benefits accruing to Petitioner on notional promotion be given to the Petitioner as has been extended to Bhramarbar Sethy. He also submits that a direction may be given to the Opposite Parties to re-fix the seniority of the Petitioner from 1983 and give notional promotion to the Petitioner retrospectively from 2001 and pay the consequential benefits attached to the post of Agriculture Overseer. The case of the Petitioner be considered and the service benefit as attached to the promotional post should be given to him within a stipulated period of time.

// 5 //

4. Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that he has no objection, if a direction is given to the Director, Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha, Bhubaneswar Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner is similarly placed with Bhramarbar Sethy and as to whether he is eligible to get the same benefit? He further submits that a direction may be given to the Petitioner to file a representation before the Opposite Party No.2, which shall be considered in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

5. In such view of the matter, this Court instead of keeping this matter pending, which was filed in the year 2011, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the Director, Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the case of Bhramarbar Sethy. In the event it is found that Petitioner is similarly placed, then the Opposite Party No.2 shall give notional promotion to the Petitioner and the consequential service benefits be paid within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation along with a certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention here that the representation of the Petitioner shall be considered by passing a speaking and a reasoned order on the same. The decision taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter.

6. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of."

// 6 //

6.4. It is contended that even though there is no dispute that Petitioners

were appointed in the cadre of VAW with their date of joining as

06.08.1987 and Bhrarmarbar Sethi as 01.01.1991, but without proper

appreciation of the Petitioners' claim and the order passed by this Court

on 15.02.2022, claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of promotion to

the rank of Agriculture Overseer from the date Bhramarbar Sethi was

given such benefit w.e.f.31.05.2001, was rejected vide the impugned

order dtd.03.06.2022 in both the cases.

6.5. While assailing the impugned rejection, learned Sr. Counsel

appearing for the Petitioners vehemently contended that since the

aforesaid Bhramarbar Sethi acquired the upgradation training much after

the Petitioners and was brought into the cadre of VAW also much after

the encadrement of the Petitioners in the cadre of VAW, the said

Bhramarbar Sethi could not have been given the benefit of promotion to

the rank of Agriculture Overseer from the cadre of VAW, ahead of the

Petitioners, which was the feeding cadre at the relevant point of time.

6.6. Since it is well proved that Petitioners were encadred in the cadre of

VAW much ahead of Bhramarbar Sethi, they should have been given the

benefit of promotion ahead of Sri Bhramarbar Sethi. But the same was

never extended in favour of the Petitioners. Even though Petitioners

// 7 //

approached the Tribunal in the year 2011, but no effective step was

taken in extending the benefit from the date the aforesaid Bhramarbar

Sethi was given the benefit i.e. w.e.f.31.05.2001. Not only that direction

issued by this Court in its order dtd.22.02.2022 was also not properly

appreciated by extending the benefit even on notional basis, while

rejecting such claim vide the impugned order dtd.03.06.2022.

6.7. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioners admittedly were

deprived to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture

Overseer on the face of such benefit being extended to a junior person

w.e.f.31.05.2001, the impugned order dtd.03.06.2022 in both the cases is

not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court

and with a direction to extend such benefit in favour of the Petitioners on

notional basis at least.

7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his

submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. While

supporting the extension of the benefit of promotion in favour of

Bhramarbar Sethi, the following stand has been taken in Para 5 & 9 of

the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:-

"5. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-1 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that Sri

// 8 //

Bhramarabar Sethy (2050(A)) has entered into Government Service as FMD on 07.10.1967 where as the Petitioner Sri Niranjan Patra (3466) has entered into Government Service as FMD 01.08.1977. As Sri Bhramarabar Sethy is much senior than the Petitioner in the feeder post of FMD the Seniority in the Gradation list of VAWs which was maintained based on the seniority in the feeder post. Accordingly, the Serial No. of the Sri Bhramarabar Sethy was placed at 2050(A) and the Sl. No. of the petitioner was rightly placed at 3466 as on the date of Promotion. The date of completion training was a criteria for getting the scale of pay of VAW not getting the seniority. It is wrongly mentioned that both Sri Bhramarabar Sethy as well as the petitioner has completed the training during 1983. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No-2 dated is not illegal.

xxx xxx xxx

9. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that Sri Bhramarabar Sethy had completed the up-gradation training and joined as VAW on 15.05.1991. But, the seniority in the Gradation List had been restored based on the feeder cadre of FMD."

7.1. It is contended that since Bhramarbar Sethi entered into service as a

Field Man Demonstrator on 07.10.1967 and the present Petitioners on

01.08.1977 and 02.11.1977 respectively, Sri Bharamarbar Sethi being

senior in the cadre of Field Man Demonstrator, his seniority was

accordingly maintained in the gradation list of VAWs so published under

// 9 //

Annexure-4. Since Sri Bharamarbar Sethi was placed above the

Petitioners in the gradation list of VAW, he was extended with the

benefit of promotion w.e.f.31.05.2001, being senior to the Petitioners in

both the cases.

7.2. It is also contended that Sri Bhramarbar Sethi though on completion

of the upgradation training, joined as a VAW on 15.05.1991, but taking

into account his joining a FMD much earlier than the Petitioners, he was

given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer

w.e.f.31.05.2001. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or

irregularity can be found with the impugned order, wherein claim of the

Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion from the date Sri Bhramarbar

Sethi got such benefits on notional basis has been rightly rejected. In

support of his submission reliance was placed to a decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors.

Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (SLP(C) Diary No. 43488 of 2023).

7.3. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 4, 5, 20 and 21 of the said Judgment

has held as follows:-

"4. Respondent No.1, Dr. Amal Satpathi, was promoted to the post of Principal Scientific Officer on an officiating basis on 24th March, 2008. On 6th January, 2016, following an amendment to the relevant Recruitment Rules, respondent No.1

// 10 //

became eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Scientific Officer. The Department4 initiated the promotional process by approaching the Public Service Commission5 on 13th April, 2016. The PSC, vide its minutes dated 29th December, 2016, recommended the name of respondent No.1 for the promotion to the said post. However, the Department received the final approval for his promotion on 4th January, 2017, but by that time, respondent No.1 had already superannuated on 31st December, 2016. Respondent No.1 made a representation to the Department to give effect to his promotion. The matter was then referred to the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal. The reply of the Finance Department is extracted below: - "In terms of rule 54(1)(a) of W.B.S.R. Part-I, a Govt. employee shall not draw pay higher than that of his permanent post unless the officiating appointment involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance. In the instant case Dr. Amal Satpathi could not join to the promotional post within his service tenure. He retired on superannuation on 31.12.2016. As a result officiation to the higher post with greater responsibilities and importance does not arise. As such appointment on promotion after retirement with retrospective effect cannot be awarded for Gr.-'A' posts. We are, therefore, of the same opinion stated by F.A., dated 16.2.2017."

5. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefits flowing from promotion, respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 555 of 2017. The Tribunal vide order dated 26th June, 2019 observed that, as per Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I of 19716, promotion cannot be granted retrospectively after the retirement of a Government employee. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that respondent No. 1 had been duly recommended for promotion before his

// 11 //

superannuation, which was only delayed due to procedural obstructions beyond his control. Therefore, while actual promotion was not acceded to, the Tribunal directed that respondent No.1 should be granted notional financial benefits of the promotional post with effect from 31st December, 2016, to ensure pensionary benefits commensurate with the promotional post.

xxx xxx xxx

20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.

21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity."

// 12 //

8. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel,

learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners made further

submission contending inter alia that promotion to the rank of

Agriculture Overseer is governed by the Odisha Agricultural Overseers

(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1980 (in short Rules).

8.1. It is contended that as provided under Rule 5(b) of the Rules,

promotion to the post of Agriculture Overseer from amongst eligible

VAWs is to be made with VAW as the feeder cadre. Rule 5(b) of the

Rules reads as follows:-

"(b) promotion from amongst Village Agricultural Workers

in accordance with the Rules 15 to 19."

8.2. It is accordingly contended that the feeder cadre for such benefit of

promotion to the rank of Agriculture being the post of VAW, stand taken

in the counter affidavit that Bhramarbar Sethi was senior in the cadre of

Field Man Demonstrator is not a valid ground to extend the benefit of

promotion in favour of Sri Bhramarbar Sethi, ignoring the claim of the

Petitioner.

9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submission made, this Court finds that both the

// 13 //

Petitioners along with Bhramarbar Sethi were engaged initially as Field

Man Demonstrator. Even though the aforesaid Bhramarbar Sethi was

appointed as a Field Man Demonstrator earlier than the Petitioners, but

after merger of the posts of FMD and VLW as per the resolution issued

under Annexure-1, all such VAWs are to acquire the upgradation

training for their encadrement in the rank of VAW.

9.1. It is not disputed that Petitioners completed such upgradation

training in the year 1983 and the aforesaid Bhramarbar Sethi in the year

1990. It is also not disputed that after completion of such upgradation

training, both the Petitioners were appointed as VAW with their date of

joining in the said cadre being shown as 06.07.1988 under Annexure-4.

It is also found that after completion of the upgradation training on

31.12.1990, Sri Bhramarbar Sethi was appointed to the rank of VAW,

with his date of joining as 01.01.1991.

9.2. Since it is not disputed that in the cadre of VAW, Petitioners have

joined earlier than Bhramarbar Sethi and VAW is the feeder cadre for

promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer, placing reliance on the

provisions contained under Rule 5(b) of the aforesaid Rues, it is the view

of this Court that claim of the Petitioners should have been considered

// 14 //

earlier than Bhramarbar Sethi to get the benefit of promotion to the rank

of Agriculture Overseer.

9.3. Since the aforesaid Bhramarbar Sethi, which is not disputed was

given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer

w.e.f.31.05.2001 and such claim of the Petitioners has been rejected

pursuant to the earlier order of this Court vide the impugned order

dtd.03.06.2022, this Court in view of the aforesaid analysis, is of the

view that claim of the Petitioners has been illegally rejected.

9.4. Therefore, while quashing the impugned order dtd.03.06.2022 in

both the cases, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2, to conduct a review

DPC of the DPC basing on which the aforesaid Bhramarbar Sethi was

given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Agriculture Overseer

w.e.f.31.05.2001. On such conduct of the Review DPC, if it will be

found that Petitioners were otherwise eligible to get the benefit of

promotion at the relevant point of time, such benefit be extended in

favour of the Petitioner from the date Sri Bhramarbara Sethi got the said

benefit, but on notional basis. Consequentially, the pensionary benefits

of the Petitioners are required to be revised, with extension of the

differential entitlements. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to complete

// 15 //

the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of

receipt of this order.

10. Both the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 12th March, 2026/Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack