Orissa High Court
Chandra Shekhar Hota vs State Of Odisha And on 5 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.40917 of 2023
Chandra Shekhar Hota .... Petitioner
Mr. T. Pattnaik, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. V. Mahapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 05.02.2026
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-
"In the circumstances, it is most graciously prayed for that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
i. issue a Writ and/or Writs setting aside letter dated 07.12.200 (Annexure-10) passed by the Opposite Party No.2;
ii. issue a Writ and/or Writs directing the Opposite Parties to grant pay protection in favour of the Petitioner by counting the past services rendered by the Petitioner under the Finance Department as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer;
// 2 // iii. to pass any other or further order (s) as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. It is contended that petitioner while continuing in the Finance Department as an Asst. Commercial Tax Officer basing on the order of appointment issued on 08.11.2010 under Annexure-1, he made his application to appear the OCS Examination, 2011 pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No.05 of 2011-12. It is contended that after making the application to take the OCS Examination, 2011 under Annexure-2, petitioner sought for permission to appear the Preliminary Examination of the said Examination.
4.1. It is contended that vide office order dated 18.06.2014 under Annexure-3, permission was accorded with the permission to appear the Preliminary Examination of the OCS Examination, 2011. It is contended that after coming out successful in the prelims, petitioner when sought for further permission to appear the main examination, the same was also allowed by the Finance Department vide office order dated 05.08.2014 under Annexure-2.
4.2. It is contended that petitioner, when ultimately was selected to appear the personality test, he again sought for permission, by making an application through proper channel on 04.01.2016 forwarded on 05.01.2026 so available under Annexure-5 series. Since prior to holding Page 2 of 9 // 3 // of the personality test, so held on 20.01.2016, petitioner was not given any permission even though such an application submitted by the petitioner on 04.01.2016 was duly forwarded to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide letter dated 05.01.2016 under Annexure-5 series, petitioner on bonafide impression that such a permission will be accorded post facto, appeared the personality test on the date fixed and finally selected for his appointment.
4.3. It is contended that on being duly selected vide Notification dated 23.02.2016, so issued by the Commission under Annexure-6, petitioner was appointed to the post of Group-A (Junior Branch) of Odisha Police Service, vide Notification dated 04.03.2016 under Annexure-7, so issued by the Home Department-Opp. Party No.2. Petitioner accordingly was relieved by the Finance Department vide communication dated 02.04.2016 under Annexure-8. In terms of the said permission given by the Finance Department-Opp. Party No.1, petitioner joined as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in terms of Annexure-7 Notification dated 04.03.2016.
4.4. It is contended that even though petitioner was duly permitted to appear the OCS Examination, 2011, with due permission granted vide Annexure-3 and 4 and appeared the personality test after making the required Page 3 of 9 // 4 // application seeking such permission under Annexure-5 series and was also relieved after coming out successful in the OCS Examination, 2011 vide Annexure-8, petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pay protection in terms of Office Memorandum issue on 06.06.1980 under Annexure-11 and Office Memorandum dated 29.10.1992 issued by the Finance Department under Annexure-12. But such claim of the petitioner when was rejected by the Home Department-Opp. Party No.2 vide the impugned communication dated 07.12.2020 under Annexure-10, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the same.
4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was permitted to appear the Preliminary and Main exam of OCS Examination, 2011 vide orders issued under Annexure-3 and 4 and application made by the petitioner seeking permission to appear the personality test was duly forwarded under Annexure-5 series. Hence it cannot be held that petitioner appeared the OCS Exam, 2011 without being issued with the permission by Opp. Party No.1. After coming out successful and on being appointed vide Notification dated 04.03.2016 under Annexure-7, petitioner was relieved by Opp. Party No.1 on 02.04.2016 under Annexure-8. Hence the ground on which petitioner's claim to get the benefit of pay protection was rejected vide the impugned order under Page 4 of 9 // 5 // Annexure-10, is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.
4.6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.2. It is contended that in terms of office Memorandum dated 06.06.1980, petitioner since prior to making the application to take the OCS Examination, 2011, never obtained the NOC from the Govt. in view of the stipulation contained in Annexure-11, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pay protection. Stipulation contained in office Memorandum reads as follows:-
"It has, therefore, been decided that in the cases where Government Servants take examinations conducted by Service Commissions, Boards etc. for appointment to new posts or where they apply for posts in the same or other Departments through proper channel, and on selection are asked to resign their posts for administrative reasons, the benefit of service may, if not otherwise inadmissible under the Rules, be given to them for fixation of pay in the new post treating the resignation as a technical formality. "
4.7. It is contended that since petitioner prior to appearing the OCS Examination, 2011, never obtained the NOC from the Competent Authority and made the application under Annexure-2, even though subsequent permission was accorded to appear the prelim and main examination vide orders issued under Annexure-3 and 4, but the same is not in compliance to the requirement of the office memorandum dated 06.06.1980.
Page 5 of 9// 6 // 4.8. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner never followed the stipulation contained in the office Memorandum dated 06.06.1980, his claim was rightly rejected vide Annexure-10 and it requires no interference.
5. To the submission made by learned Addl. Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that in the meantime, Govt. in the Finance Department vide office order dated 22.10.2024 under Annexure-13, has taken the following decision:-
"Therefore, to save applicant employees from harassment and also the Department from such unproductive work, Slate Government in Finance Department do herby grant its standing permission and No Objection Certificate in favour of all officers of OFS, OTAS, Odisha Service of Auditors (Common Cadre Auditor) and Odisha Sub-ordinate Finance Service Cadres and other employees working under its administrative control for applying for any job elsewhere or for appearing in any recruitment examination subject to following conditions:-
1. The employee shall not neglect his/her official duties/responsibilities for appearing in any examination or for applying for any job.
2. The employee must take prior permission of competent authority for leave and Head Quarter leaving permission, wherever required, for appearing in any recruitment examination/job interview.
3. This Standing Permission/NOC shall not be construed as permission of the Department to relieve the employee from its administrative control. In case the employee is selected for the job applied for, he/she must seek approval of this Department, through proper channel, to be relieved from his/her current service. Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, in public interest or for any other justifiable reason, the Department reserves the right to refuse to relieve the employee from his/her current service."Page 6 of 9
// 7 // 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner appeared the OCS Examination, 2011 both prelims and main, after due permission granted vide order under Annexure-3 and 4 and his application to grant permission to appear the personality test was duly forwarded under Annexure-5 series, no fault can be found with the petitioner, in taking the examination and consequentially getting the benefit of appointment under Annexure-7. Not only that after being so appointed, petitioner was relieved without any objection vide Annexure-8.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while continuing as ACTO in the department of Finance in terms of Annexure-1 order, he made the application to appear the OCS Examination, 2011 under Annexure-2. As found, petitioner was granted permission to appear the prelims and subsequently the main examination of the OCS Examination, 2011 vide orders issued under Annexure-3 and 4. Prior to taking the personality test so fixed to 20.01.2016, petitioner sought for permission by making an application on 04.01.2016 and the same was duly forwarded vide letter dated 05.01.2016 under Annexure-5 series.
6.1. Since petitioner was earlier allowed to appear the prelim and main examination with due permission vide order under Annexure-3 and 4, petitioner under bonafide Page 7 of 9 // 8 // impression that such permission will be given appeared the personality test and was also got selected. Petitioner after being appointed vide Notification dated 04.03.2016 under Annexure-7 of Opp. Party No.2, was relieved by Opp. Party No.1 vide order dated 02.04.2016 under Annexure-8, without any objection.
6.2. Since petitioner was allowed to appear the prelim and main examination of the OCS Examination, 2011 with due permission vide Annexure-3 and 4 and he also made an application seeking permission to appear the personality test vide Annexure-5, it is the view of this Court that the same amounts to compliance of the requirement of the office Memorandum dated 06.06.1980 under Annexure-11.
6.3. It is also the view of this Court that since petitioner without any objection was relieved vide letter dated 02.04.2016 to take up the new assignment, the ground on which petitioner's claim has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-10, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
6.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 under Annexure-10, direct Opp. Party No.2 to extend the benefit of pay protection in favour of the petitioner. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to do the needful with passing of a fresh order as Page 8 of 9 // 9 // expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Page 9 of 9 Date: 10-Feb-2026 11:30:14