Orissa High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Amiya Kanti Patnaik .... Opp. Party on 12 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23009 of 2024
Union of India & others .... Petitioners
Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI
Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap, CGC
-versus-
Amiya Kanti Patnaik .... Opp. Party
Mr. Jagamohan Pattnaik, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUSTICE CHITTA RANJAN DASH
ORDER
12.01.2026 Order No. The Union Government & its officials are knocking
09. at the doors of the Writ Court assailing impugned 05.03.2024 passed in O.A No. 260/402 of 2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:-
"12. Thus, viewed from any angle, as discussed above, this Tribunal do not find any justification in keeping the recommendation of the DPC finding the applicant 'FIT' under deemed sealed cover when giving promotion to his juniors. Accordingly, the impugned order of rejection communicated vide F.No.C- 18011/31/2014-Ad.II dated 12th March, 2021 (A/5) is hereby quashed. Since the applicant has already been found 'FIT' by the DPC, the respondents are directed to promote the applicant to the post of Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs with Page 1 of 1 effect from the date his junior was promoted vide order dated 31.12.2013 and grant him all consequential service and financial benefits retrospectively within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. In the result, the OA stands allowed. ...."
2. Heard Mr. P. K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap, learned CGC for the petitioners and Mr. Jagamohan Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party. The petition stands dismissed on the ground that the sealed cover procedure, being an exception to the normal rule, cannot result in an indefinite deferment of the claim of a candidate whose case has been kept in sealed cover. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India vs. Doly Loyi, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2613, has categorically held that such claims cannot be eternally put in abeyance.
3. At this stage, it would be apposite to extract paragraph 11 of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, which reads as follows:
"11. Besides the above, it is not out of place to mention that according to the respondents department the CBI case was instituted against the applicant on 12.11.2008 but there was no progress till 06.01.2014 (for near about more than five years) and, on 06.01.2014, the criminal case was stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata only for a period of five weeks.Page 2 of 5
Thus, there was no progress from 12.11.2008 till the date of promotion order was issued in favour of the juniors of the applicant on 31.12.2013. Even till date the CBI case is still pending without any order of stay by any higher forum. At the stage, it is relevant to put on record that the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for the delay in conclusion of the criminal case directed to promote the applicant giving effect to the recommendation of DPC entitling him all consequential benefits in the cases of Nihar Ranjan Choudhury Vs State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.21793 of 2021, disposed of on 06.11.2023; State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Hota & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 18500/2015 disposed of on 06.05.2022, and Dr. Malaya Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Orissa & Anr., in W.P.(C) No. 33216/2021 disposed of on 07.12.2022. Thus, as discussed above, this being one such case, by applying the law laid down in the above cases, the applicant is also entitled to the relief claimed in this OA."
4. A plain reading of the aforesaid findings makes it evident that the prolonged pendency of the criminal case was not attributable to any act or omission on the part of opposite party. The Tribunal has also followed the consistent view of this Court that in cases of inordinate delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings, promotion cannot be denied indefinitely and the recommendations of the DPC are liable to be given effect to with consequential benefits, after opening the sealed cover. Sealed cover procedure cannot be indiscriminately employed to seal the career progression of a deserving Page 3 of 5 employee for an indefinite period of time. It is more so when the employer is an entity under Article 12 of the Constitution of India which have to conduct themselves as model employer vide Bhupendranath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234
5. It is well settled that the sealed cover procedure, being an exception, is intended to balance administrative exigencies with fairness to the employee and cannot assume a punitive character. Keeping a promotional claim in abeyance for years together, in the absence of any progress in the criminal proceedings or a subsisting order of stay, defeats the very object of the procedure.
6. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over the findings of the Tribunal, unless the impugned order suffers from perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error. No such infirmity is discernible in the impugned order. On the contrary, the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously, based on admitted facts and settled principles of law.
Accordingly, the direction issued by the Tribunal to open the sealed cover and grant promotion to the opposite party cannot be faltered and therefore, warrants Page 4 of 5 no interference by this Court. Impugned order to be implemented within an outer limited of eight (8) weeks.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 16:16:19 Page 5 of 5