Orissa High Court
Afr vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14542 of 2022
AFR
Dwitikrushna Rout & others .... Petitioners
Dr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:15.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.10.2025
1.Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned orders dated 25th June, 2020 and 18th December, 2021 as at Annexures-12 and 16 respectively and further to direct the opposite parties to adjust them on permanent basis against available vacancies as the Assistant Section Officers (ASOs) in the Heads of the Department by such re-designation w.e.f. 24th January, 2019 and consequently, to grant seniority on the basis of Annexure-3 on the grounds stated therein.
2. According to the petitioners, the Odisha Staff Selection Commission, Bhubaneswar (shortly as 'the Commission') by way of an advertisement invited applications from eligible candidates vis-à-vis recruitment of Junior Assistants in respect of the offices of the Heads of the Department as per Page 1 of 16 Annexure-2, consequent upon which, they applied for the posts, in respect of which, Preliminary Examination was held on 29th August, 2010 and thereafter, the Mains on 27th February, 2011 and all stood qualified, hence, notification dated 2nd July, 2011 i.e. Annexure-3 was issued for their appointment with the select list being published. It is pleaded that the Commission on the basis of requisition received from the Heads of the Departments sponsored the selected candidates and as such, the petitioners joined the Odisha Administrative Tribunal pursuant to the orders dated 17th August, 2011 and 13th July, 2012 vide Annexxure-5 series.
3. The State Government in GA and PG Department as per office order dated 11th October, 2018 i.e. Annexure-6 took decision to restructure the Heads of the Department cadres with a view to avoid stagnation and provide better promotional avenue without altering the cadre strength and with the resolution i.e. Annexure-7 published in the Official Gazette, such restructuring was followed vis-à-vis Odisha Ministerial Services (Assistant and Section Officers) cadre in the offices of the Heads of the Departments and the Odisha Heads of Departments Establishment Officers Cadre in the manner stipulated therein, as per which, it was decided that the post of Junior Assistant shall be the base level post and to continue with the existing sanctioned strength at the same level of pay, whereas, the post of Senior Assistant to be re- designated as Assistant Section Officer (ASO) with the level Page 2 of 16 of pay as per the ORSP Rules, 2017 and while doing so, 351 posts of Senior Assistant were abolished from the cadre.
4. In pursuance of the resolution (Annexure-7), the Junior Assistants, who were selected with the petitioners consequent to the advertisement of the year 2010 and allotted to different Heads of the Department were promoted as Senior Assistants in 2015 re-designated as ASOs with the existing level of pay as per the ORSP Rules, 2017 w.e.f. the date of such resolution i.e. 24th January, 2019.
5. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that the candidates placed below them in the select list of 2011 published by the Commission are enjoying the benefits after restructuring of the Heads of Department cadre in view of Annexure-7 but for no apparent reasons, they have been deprived of the same and while stating so, Annexure-8 series are referred to. The petitioners claim that while continuing as Junior Assistants, they received promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant on 13th February, 2015 vide Annexxure-9 series but have not been re-designated as ASOs w.e.f. 24th January, 2019 like their counterparts.
6. In the meanwhile, the petitioners and others submitted representation for inclusion of posts sanctioned and continued under the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the restructuring resolution dated 24th January, 2019 and it was forwarded by the Registrar of the Tribunal by placing the grievance as per Annexure-10 series. In the meantime, the Page 3 of 16 Government of India in principle agreed with the proposal of the State Government for abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal w.e.f. 5th August, 2019 with a condition that its employees would be suitably adjusted in other Heads of the Department depending on the vacancies in equivalent cadre and post. Referring to Annexure-11, it is pleaded that the petitioners are under the administrative control of the GA and PG Department, Government of Odisha but at the same time, restructuring, benefits have not been extended to them with an intimation as per Annexure-12 on the premise that the same is not admissible to the employees of a dying cadre.
7. It is alleged that the State Government without inviting options, according to the seniority on the basis of the gradation list, applying pick and choose method adjusted 19 employees junior to the petitioners both in the ranks of Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant and deployed them in the Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) by order dated 19th March, 2020 vide Annexxure-13 and all of them have also been absorbed permanently as the ASOs thereat. The Nodal Officer of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by a letter dated 28th November, 2021 at Annexure-15 requested re-designation of the petitioners as ASOs in view of the resolution of the GA and PG Department but it was not considered and disposed of with intimation vide Annexure-16 stating that such proposal has been regretted as further pleaded. It is also claimed that the State Government asked Page 4 of 16 the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by a letter as at Annexuxre-17 to furnish the details of all the staff to be redeployed in other Heads of the Department and it was responded vide Annexure-18 but no such deployment was followed thereby denying permanent absorption in the post of ASOs maintaining seniority as per the merit list prepared by the Commission.
8. Similarly, the employees selected along with the petitioners allotted and joined in the Controller of Accounts even though found below the merit list have been promoted to rank of Section officer by office order dated 13 th May, 2022 at Annexure-19 and therefore, had the Odisha Administrative Tribunal not been abolished, it is claimed that they would have also received similar promotions. It is alleged that instead of carrying out redeployment and absorption of the petitioners on permanent basis in any Heads of Department, two of them, namely petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are in deployment in Orissa High Court and others are still in the Tribunal as Senior Assistants till date. It is claimed that so many posts of Senior Assistants re-designated as ASOs are lying vacant in different Heads of the Departments but the petitioners are not being adjusted against such vacancies on permanent basis despite being senior and an undertaking given by the State to the Government of India at the time of abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal.
Page 5 of 169. Opposite party No.1 has filed the counter affidavit and the same is gone through. According to the pleading therein, office of the Tribunal is till continued and after its final winding up, the petitioners are to be adjusted in other offices in due course and such re-deployment shall be according to the availability of vacancies in other cadres and while stating so, Annexures-N/1, P/1 and Q/1 are placed reliance on. It is pleaded that pursuant to the Court's order in O.A.T. Bar Association, Cuttack Vrs. Union of India and others (2021) 83 OCR 434, since, it has been directed that the State Government shall not transfer proceedings to any other Authority or Court, therefore, the GA and PG Department have not taken any action towards adjustment of the OAT employees except the redeployed staff in OREAT and such deployment of 19 of its employees, it is by virtue of the High Court's orders in W.P.(C) Nos.8158 and 11863 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.3029 of 2020, later to which, 18 of them have been absorbed. It is further pleaded that as per the resolution dated 24th January, 2019 of the State Government, restructuring of the Heads of the Department has taken place and in so far as, the posts of Junior Assistant, ASO and Section Officer are concerned, they are to remain under the administrative control of the respective Heads of the Department, where the employees are posted, whereas, a common cadre shall be created from the level of the Establishment Officer and above in the hierarchy.
Page 6 of 1610. According to opposite party No.1, the staff of the Controller of Accounts are governed by the Odisha Heads of the Department (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Junior Assistants, ASOs and Section Officers in the offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 2019 and are under the administrative control of the Controller of Accounts, whereas, the OAT is having a separate set of rules and therefore, such comparison is not proper as they do not belong to a common cadre and that apart, the State Government have not debarred promotion to any of the employees of the OAT. As the office of the OAT is continued as such, it has been pleaded further that in the matter of proposal of the State Government, on abolition of the Tribunal, the Nodal Officer, OAT shall have to work in close co-ordination with the High Court towards transfer of records, use of manpower etc. and as per the directions received, 15 employees of the OAT including two of the petitioners have been deployed in the High Court. With such other facts narrated, it is pleaded that the representation received from the petitioners was rejected with valid reasons and since, resolution of GA and PG Department dated 24th January, 2019 reveals that the post of Junior Assistant, ASO and SO shall remain under the administrative control of the respective Heads of the Department, where the employees are posted, their request with such a proposal is not sustainable.
11. A rejoinder affidavit is filed to the counter of opposite party No.1 and therein, the petitioners have reiterated the Page 7 of 16 facts pleaded with the contention that Odisha Administrative Tribunal is a Head of the Department since the advertisement and recruitment for the post of Junior Assistant was accomplished with a requisition received from the Commission. It is pleaded that except the petitioners, all other selected candidates of the merit list have been sponsored to different Heads of the Department of the State and in the meantime, re-designated as ASOs and enjoying all the benefits of HoD cadre as per the resolution dated 24 th January, 2019 of the GA and PG Department. It is also pleaded that the petitioners are seniors to others, who upon re-deployment, have been permanently absorbed, whereas, they have been left out on the ground that all belong to a dying cadre. It is claimed that since the designation of the Senior Assistant in the Heads of the Department has been changed to Assistant Section Officer having identical scale of pay like the employees of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, such re-designation of the petitioners and others shall have to be made in view of Rule 24 of the OAT Rules, 1999 and Heads of the Department Rules, 1994 and furthermore, rejection of the proposal is in conflict with the undertaking submitted to this Court in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2019 and before the Apex Court in SLP Nos.10985 and 12586 of 2021 to the effect that in case of abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, its employees are to be adjusted in the cadre of Heads of Department, whereas, in the counter, it is pleaded that the employees are to be adjusted in Page 8 of 16 other offices and in such view of the matter, all are to be forthwith re-designated as ASOs alike others.
12. Heard Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the opposite parties.
13. It is claimed by the petitioners that the Odisha Administrative Tribunal is a Head of the Department but the same is challenged on the ground that it is under the administrative control of the GA and PG Department, Government of Odisha. In fact, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal is a statutory quasi-judicial body brought into existence with the introduction of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As such, the Tribunal is no any Government Department. The question is, whether, while alive to the above position, the proposal of the OAT could have been accepted by the Government redesignating them as ASOs at par with others, who have joined in different Heads of the Departments on being sponsored or redeployed in the meantime. It has been claimed that the petitioners have been singled out, whereas, juniors to them upon redeployment in another establishment have been permanently absorbed and redesignated. The Court is, thus, to examine, whether, the proposal of the petitioners with the representation and its rejection by the Government to be justified.
14. In so far as the service conditions of the petitioners are concerned, it is guided and governed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment & Conditions of Page 9 of 16 Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999. In so far as the OAT is concerned, as is claimed by the State, the same has not been declared as a Head of Department. That apart, the OAT has been abolished in the meantime. Admittedly, some of the employees of the OAT have been redeployed in OREAT by an order dated 19th March, 2020 at Annexure-13. The grievance of the petitioners is that by selectively choosing 19 employees of the OAT, who are below the gradation list and junior to them, have been redeployed by such an order and in the meantime, they stand permanently absorbed as ASOs. The further grievance is that the persons similarly placed and selected along with the petitioners were allotted to the Controller of Accounts even though they secured position lower to them in the merit list and were promoted to the rank of Section Officer vide Annexure-19.
15. It is claimed that many posts in other Heads of Department of Senior Assistant re-designated as ASO are lying vacant and the petitioners could be adjusted against such posts on permanent basis but have been ignored and despite requests made, it has not been honoured. It is not in denial that the petitioners received usual promotion in the OAT. In so far as restructuring of cadres is concerned, it has taken place in respect of the Government Departments, not applicable to the OAT. The record reveals that the petitioners represented the Government to include the OAT in the cadre restructure but it has been not been allowed. Such representation was forwarded by the Registrar, OAT as per Page 10 of 16 Annexure-10 series in order to include the posts sanctioned and continued as part of the restructuring resolution dated 24th January, 2019 and 12th February, 2019. The Government of India have in principle agreed with the proposal of the State Government for abolition of OAT with the condition that it shall suitably adjust the employees therein in other Heads of Departments depending on the vacancies in equivalent cadre and posts and the same is evident from Annexure-11, a letter dated 3rd July, 2018 received by the Registrar General, Orissa High Court, Cuttack from the GA Department, Govt. of Odisha. As previously stated, 19 employees junior to the petitioners were redeployed in the OREAT vide Annexure-13. The claim is that in the said order, the employees at Serial Nos.8 to 14 in Annexure-13 were redeployed in OREAT, whereas, one of them, namely, Dillip Khuntia, junior to all the petitioners, received promotion as Senior Assistant in 2020 has been absorbed there permanently as ASO besides other Senior Assistants appointed and re-designated as ASOs. What is the way out in view of the plea of the petitioners demanding redesignation after restructuring of cadre and redeployment with promotions having taken place?
16. As it appears, the grievance of the petitioners was not entertained for the reason that they belong to a dying cadre as in the meantime OAT was abolished. There has been absorption of 19 employees of the OAT in the OREAT. It is not replied in the counter, as to on what basis, said employees Page 11 of 16 of the OAT irrespective of seniority were picked up for redeployment. It is claimed by the petitioners that there has been no rational basis and bypassing seniority, such redeployment was carried out. It is quite unusual to notice that some employees junior to the petitioners with the redeployment having taken place have been permanently absorbed and receiving the benefits of the cadre restructure. In the counter affidavit, this Court finds, no justifiable reason to have been assigned as to why comparative benefits could not be thought of and extended to the petitioners, while considering the representation received from them in compliance of the Court's order in W.P.(C) No.17971 of 2020. The Court is of the humble view that the Government should have extended benefits to the petitioners similar to the others, who are engaged in the Heads of Department more so like the staff redeployed in OREAT by a decision to meet the peculiar situation or gone for amendment for the service rules, whichever, to be more convenient. The OAT is not a Head of Department but when it has been abolished and 19 of its employees received redeployment order and the benefits of the cadre restructuring even when some of them juniors to the petitioners, such an exercise was really needed. The OAT was an independent entity and not like any other Government Department and all its employees are to be accordingly treated instead of abandoning them for an indefinite period. With an understanding that some of the employees of the OAT are redeployed and absorbed in OREAT, it would Page 12 of 16 always be an expectation of the petitioners to be adjusted at the earliest but it could not be possible for the obvious reason and on account of retention and redeployment in the High Court to manage the case records and routine work. This Court is of the humble view that the Government should have given special attention considering the case of the petitioners, who are held up and not benefitted like others after restructuring of the cadre and are in a disadvantaged position. The further view of the Court is that even though the OAT is not included in the resolution of restructuring of cadre, at least, the re-designation, promotion etc. should have been extended to its employees as there is no harm in doing so as a one-time measure. At present, not so happy kind of a situation has emerged with a lot of disappointment, especially, for the fact that 19 other junior employees of the OAT received redeployment and have been permanently absorbed in the OREAT and are receiving the benefits of cadre restructuring. Why the petitioners are to be denied such benefit merely for the reason that they are engaged in the OAT and not in any Heads of Department. To say that the petitioners belong to a dying cadre is not a kind of response one expects from the Government. Of course, as a matter of right, such benefits cannot be demanded but under the peculiar circumstances after redeployment of some of the OAT employees having taken place, it was quite but natural to anticipate such benefits extended to the petitioners as well. As earlier concluded, the Government could have considered Page 13 of 16 such grievance by extending similar benefits to the OAT employees left out and not redeployed either by carrying out amendment to the OAT Rules or at least, by a special order, to meet the contingency. Such a situation cannot be left unattended for long in anticipation of redeployment in future. No doubt, redeployment would take place one day but it should not be left undecided for an indefinite period, which is certainly to have a demoralizing effect on the petitioners, especially when they are senior to the employees redeployed in the OREAT, who are already re-designated as ASOs. It should have been a better option for the Government to consider extending comparative benefits in the lines of the restructuring resolution with the re-designation to the petitioners by a special measure. It is true that the employees of the OAT cannot automatically claim benefits of the cadre restructure implemented by the Government in the offices of the Heads of Department, which the Court is well aware of. Such demand is not a matter of right for anyone to claim. But, at the same time, the Court is of view that comparative benefits should be extended to the petitioners, who are no less than their counterparts redeployed in OREAT and the Government should, therefore, initiate an exercise of redeployment of the petitioners with fully winding up of the establishment in consultation with the High Court by such means and measures possible instead of delaying it or to immediately extend comparative service benefits in the lines of the restructuring resolution with re-designation meant for Page 14 of 16 others of the Heads of Department by promulgating a special order, or to forthwith amend the OAT Rules to make it feasible, which ever course is more convenient.
17. Interestingly, the petitioners received appointments after being sponsored by the Commission as per the merit list. Such general recruitment was held to fill up the posts lying vacant in the offices of the Heads of Department. When the OAT is not a Head of Department but the recruitment as per the advertisement was conducted including it with other Government Departments and a common merit list was prepared and published, it is quite but natural to expect that the petitioners to receive equal treatment after the decision of the Government on resolution restructuring of cadres. It is of course right to claim that the petitioners cannot demand any such right based on legitimate expectation. But, it cannot be gainsaid that equal rights are to be extended in a situation, like the present, when there has been a general recruitment for all and when some of the junior employees of the OAT after redeployment have been permanently absorbed availing the benefits of such restructuring of the cadres. It is, hence, to be concluded that the case of the petitioners has not been considered by the Government with a holistic approach but out rightly rejected merely on the premise that the OAT is not a Head of Department and all belong to a dying cadre. Having said that, the view of the Court is that the Government should immediately work out one of the options discussed hereinbefore in extending the benefits to the Page 15 of 16 petitioners, which is absolutely necessary and expedient in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, it is ordered.
18. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with by opposite party No.1 concluding the entire exercise as soon as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok/Rojina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 16-Oct-2025 11:51:20 Page 16 of 16