Dismissed

Padma Ch.Mohanty v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC7 Mar 2019WP(C)/25332/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order dismisses a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal decision. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the petitioner failed to joins promptly on adhoc promotion due to self-created delays and political maneuvering. The promotion was terminated as it did not confer substantive rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous cases disposed of.

Padma Ch.Mohanty Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 25332 of 2012

¶2

07.03.2019

¶3

Heard Mr. Ashok Ku. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Addl. Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶4

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.647(C) of 1994.

¶5

The learned Tribunal while considering the matter in paragraphs-6 to 9 of the impugned order has observed as under:

¶6

“6. The applicant relies on Annexure-1 i.e. gradation list of Senior Clerks as it stood on 1.1.1983. On the other hand, the respondents relied on a gradation list as it stood on 15.01.1993 vide Annexure-A/1. Admittedly as per Annexure-1 respondent No.4 joined Govt. service on 8.9.1963 whereas applicant joined service on 20.07.1965. Further, much prior to applicant’s promotion order, the gradation list had been amended by Annexure-A/1 and objections had been invited. The applicant could have filed objection to challenge the correctness of Annexure-A/1. Thus, by the time promotion order was passed, AnnexureA/1 had come to force, subject to objections filed by aggrieved persons.

¶7

It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant on receipt of his promotion order was relieved of his duties from the office of the C.D.P.O., Birdi and submitted his joining report before the B.D.O., Biridi on 8.4.1994. But the B.D.O. refused to accept his joining report on the plea that another person had already joined against that post. An order was passed by this Tribunal on 18.3.1994 to the effect that there would be interim stay of operation of the order passed by the Collector cancelling the applicant’s promotion. But the order had already taken effect before the stay order was passed. Since another person had already joined as

¶8

-2-

¶9

the Head Clerk, the B.D.O. would not have accepted the applicant’s joining report.

¶10

The adhoc promotion order was passed on 11.2.1994. The applicant was working at Birdi at that time. After promotion he was also posted at Birdi. Thus, he could have been relieved on the next day and joined the promotional post at once. Instead of doing that he tried to exert political pressure on the Collector vide Annexure-2 to the M.P. No.850 of 1994 and get another posting order at a place of his choice. Thus, the applicant has to blame himself for cancellation of his promotion order. The respondents were not bound to wait for more than two months for applicant to join the promotional post.

¶11

The promotion in question was only adhoc, and subject to change depending on the recommendation of the D.P.C. such an adhoc promotion did not confer any substantive right on the applicant to continue as an adhoc promotee.”

¶12

In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶13

The writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. All connected Misc. Cases/I.As are disposed of accordingly.

¶14

.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶15

………………..……… (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶16

SKJ

Padma Ch.Mohanty v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Ch.Mohanty v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tapan Ku.Panda Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Voltas Ltd. Vs Spl.a.C.of Sales Tax

Tolaram Mohanlal Vs Commnr.of Entry Tax

Subasini Devi Vs G.M.,East Coast Rly.

M/S.S.B.Detergents Vs State of Orissa

Mahendra Behera Vs Ori. Admn.Tribunal