Orissa High Court
Pranab Kishore Nayak & vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 17 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) (OAC) No.557 of 2017
Pranab Kishore Nayak & .... Petitioners
Another Mr.U.C.Mohanty, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.S.N. Nayak, ASC
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.04.2023 Order No
12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the non-extension of the benefit of promotion pursuant to the selection made by the review DPC held on 06.01.2016 under Annexure-4.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that in the earlier review DPC, which was held on 04.02.2013 when the Petitioners were found eligible for their promotion to the rank of ORS-Group-B, they made application for their posting to a nearer place. But in the meantime pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A No.1764 of 2013, the decision taken in the DPC held on 04.02.2013 was set aside and in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal a review DPC was held on 06.01.2016 under Annexure-4. In the said review DPC // 2 // held on 06.01.2016, the Petitioners were found eligible for their promotion to the rank of ORS-Group-B. While the Petitioner No.1 was placed at Sl.No.72, Petitioner No.2 was placed at Sl. No.7 in proceeding of the review DPC dated 06.01.2016. But on the ground that the Petitioners had earlier forgone the promotion, the benefit of promotion was not extended in favour of the Petitioners. It is contended that seeking extension of the benefit of promotion, though the Petitioners moved individual applications before the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-5, but the same was never considered with extension of the benefit and in the meantime and during pendency of the matter, both the Petitioners have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that similarly situated employees who had also earlier represented for their transfer to a nearer place on being found suitable by the DPC for promotion to the rank of ORS-Group-B held on 04.02.2013, were allowed the benefit of promotion vide notification dated 06.02.2016 under Annexure-7 after they were recommended in the review DPC held on 06.01.2016.
It is contended that since similar benefit has been extended in favour of similarly situated employees vide order at Annexure-7, both the Petitioners are eligible to get the benefit of promotion in terms of the recommendation of the DPC dated 06.01.2016.
5. On instruction Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since the persons given the benefit vide order at Annexure-7 have only prayed for Page 2 of 4 // 3 // change of their place of posting after their names were recommended by the DPC held on 04.02.2013, their cases were considered favourably with issuance of the notification at Annexure-7. But since both the Petitioners on the earlier occasion have forgone the promotion they cannot be treated as similar to the persons reflected at Annexure-7. The instruction provided to the learned Addl. Standing Counsel vide letter dated 23.02.2023 be kept in record.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that in the DPC held on 04.02.2013 when the Petitioners were found eligible for their promotion to ORS, Group-B, they represented to the concerned authority to place them to a nearer place. But the decision taken by the DPC in the proceeding dated 04.02.2013 was quashed and pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal a review DPC was held on 06.01.2016 under Annexure-4. In the said review DPC, the Petitioners were found eligible for their promotion to ORS Group-B. Even though a stand has been taken by the Opposite Parties that the Petitioners were not given the benefit of promotion as they had earlier forgone the same, but no document has been filed by the Opposite Parties showing therein that the Petitioners have forgone their promotion on the earlier occasion save and except the instruction provided to the learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
6.1. Since in the representation at Annexure-5, it is found that the Petitioner No.2 has only represented for transfer to a nearer place, it cannot be held that the Petitioners have forgone their promotion on the earlier occasion. Since, Page 3 of 4 // 4 // similarly situated employees who have taken similar plea after their names were recommended in the DPC held on 04.02.2013 as like the Petitioners, were given the benefit of promotion vide Notification dated 06.02.2016 under Annxure-7, basing on the review DPC held on 06.01.2016, this Court is of the view that the Petitioners are entitled to get similar benefit. While holding so, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to extend the benefit of promotion in favour of the Petitioners in terms of the recommendation of the review DPC held on 06.01.2016 in the light of the order passed under Annexure-7. However, Opposite Party No.2 is directed to extend such benefit of promotion in favour of the Petitioners only on notional basis, but by allowing revision of pension and other pensionary benefits. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Page 4 of 4