Dismissed¶56

Dusmanta Ku.Das v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC28 Oct 2025WP(C)/18970/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cuttack Development Authority; up-gradation from Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant; gradation list circulation dated 12.01.2010 (Annexure-B/2); gradation list at Annexure-3; feeder-cadre placement as basis of up-gradation; claim of seniority and relate-back of promotion; arbitrariness and discrimination; additional affidavit unrebutted; Petitioners promoted 2020-2022; W.P.(C) No.18970 of 2011; Orissa High Court; Justice V. Narasingh; dismissed with costs made easy.

What did the court decide?

There are several signatures of different categories of employees evidencing circulation of the gradation list of the officers or staffs of CDA, including that of Junior Assistants (the Petitioners); the contention that the gradation list was not circulated therefore fails. ¶46

Dusmanta Ku.Das Vs State and Ors. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the up-gradation of private Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 10 to Senior Assistant ahead of the Petitioners, despite all of them having joined on the same day as Junior Assistants, was arbitrary and discriminatory. +2 more

¶31

Court's answer

It was not in dispute that the gradation list of Junior Assistants, being the basis of up-gradation to Sr. Assistants, was never assailed by the Petitioners.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

¶46

Key takeaways

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 are shown in the gradation list at Serial Nos. 22, 26, 23, 21, 20 and 24 respectively, below the Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 10, who are placed at Serial Nos. 10 to 17 in the gradation list at Annexure-3 (placement of Opposite Parties at Serial Nos. 10 to 17 appears at para 49).ratio¶47
The Court was not persuaded to hold that the act of the Opposite Party in upgrading the private Opposite Parties to the rank of Sr. Assistants ahead of the Petitioners marks discrimination or arbitrariness warranting interference of this Court.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (V. Narasingh J., order dated 28.10.2025) dismissed W.P.(C) No.18970 of 2011 filed by seven Junior Assistants of the Cuttack Development Authority who assailed their non-consideration for up-gradation to Senior Assistant while private Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 10, said to have joined the same day, were upgraded ahead of them. The Court found: (i) the Junior Assistant gradation list was duly circulated on 12.01.2010, as evidenced by signatures of employees of different categories including Junior Assistants; (ii) the Petitioners stood at Serial Nos. 22, 26, 23, 21, 20 and 24 in that list, below the Opposite Parties placed at Serial Nos. 10 to 17; (iii) the gradation list, being the basis of up-gradation, was never assailed by the Petitioners, and no response was filed to the additional affidavit showing its circulation; and (iv) up-gradation of the private Opposite Parties followed their respective positions in the feeder-cadre gradation list and involved no discrimination or arbitrariness warranting interference. The Petitioners had meanwhile been promoted as Senior Assistants (31.03.2020 to 24.05.2022). Writ petition dismissed; costs made easy.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.18970 of 2011

¶3

1. Dusmanta Kumar Das

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

2. Sridhar Parida

¶6

3. Debasis Das

¶7

4. Dillip Kumar Mohapatra

¶8

5. Samir Kumar Parida

¶9

6. Rabindra Kumar Sahani

¶10

7. Balaram Mohanty

¶11

Mr. G.N. Mishra, Advocate Ms. G. Priyadarshini, Advocate

¶12

-versus-

¶13

1. State of Orissa

¶14

…. Opposite Parties

¶15

2. Cuttack Development Authority, represented trough its Secretary

¶16

3. Ranjita Panda

¶17

4. J.K. Palei

¶18

5. Trilochan Mallick

¶19

6. Dillip Ku. Jena

¶20

7. Hemanta Ku. Patra

¶21

8. Abhaya Ku. Parida

¶22

9. Bibekananda Behera

¶23

10. Debendra Pradhan

¶24

Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr, Advocate Mr. A.K Pradhan, Advocate

¶25

Page 1 of 7

¶26

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER 28.10.2025

¶27

Order No.

¶28

13. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. None appeared for the private Opposite Parties 3 to 10.

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed assailing nonconsideration of claim of the Petitioners, Jr. Assistant, working in the Cuttack Development Authority for the post of Senior Assistant by way of up-gradation.

¶30

To fortify their submission, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that admittedly all the Petitioners were Junior Assistants. The Petitioners as well as the Pvt. Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 10, had joined on the same day as Junior Assistant and while considering the up-gradation, their cases were left out.

¶31

Hence, on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination, the upgradation of the Opposite Parties have been assailed.

¶32

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that since the gradation list at Annexure-3 was not circulated, the Petitioners were not aware of their respective positions in the said

¶33

Page 2 of 7

¶34

gradation list and that they are placed before the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 10 in the rank of Jr. Assistant.

¶35

It is also apt to note that admittedly, in the meanwhile, all the Petitioners have been promoted as Senior Assistants. It is not refuted that the respective dates of their promotion have been mentioned in Annexure-B/2. For convenience of ready reference the same is culled out hereunder;

¶36

Sl. No.	Name of the Petitioners	Date of Promotion to Senior Asst.
1.	Dusmanta Kumar Das, Junior Asst.	Dt.06.01.2022
2.	Sridhar Parida,Junior Asst.	Dt.24.06.2021
3.	Debasis Das,Junior Asst.	Dt.24.05.2022
4.	Dillip Mohapatra, Junior Asst.	Dt.24.06.2021
5.	Samir Parida,Junior Asst.	Dt.31.03.2020
6.	Rabindra Sahani, Junior Asst.	Dt.31.03.2020
7.	Balaram Mohanty, Junior Asst.	Dt.24.06.2021

¶37

5-A. Referring to the same, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that, notwithstanding such promotion, the Petitioners are entitled to seniority and their promotion to the post of Senior Assistants, ought to relate back to the date on

¶38

Page 3 of 7

¶39

which the Opposite Parties were upgraded as Senior Assistant.

¶40

Per contra, learned senior counsel for the Cuttack Development Authority, Mr. D. Mohapatra, instructed by Mr. A.K. Pradhan, Advocate refutes such submission and referring to the additional affidavit, states that on a bare perusal of AnnexureB/2 annexed thereto, it can be seen that the gradation list pertaining to the rank of Junior Assistant of CDA was in fact circulated on 12.01.2010. For convenience of ready reference the office order circulating the gradation list is extracted hereunder:

¶41

Page 4 of 7

¶42

On a bare perusal of the same, it can be seen that the office order refers to “Draft Gradation List” relating to the officers and staffs of the CDA.

¶43

6-A. It is apt to note here that there are a series of signatures stated to be of employees belonging to different categories. And, the same is relied upon to put forth the stand of the CDA that the said gradation list was duly circulated.

¶44

In this context, the attention of this Court is drawn to the signatures at Serial Nos. 7 and 19, purportedly those of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.

¶45

7-A. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that there is no assertion in the pleadings that the said signatures are those of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, as stated.

¶46

Be that as it may, it is seen that there are several signatures of different categories of employees evidencing circulation of the gradation list of the officers or staffs of CDA including that of Jr. Assistants (Petitioners).

¶47

Admittedly, Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 are shown in the gradation list as being posted at Serial Nos. 22, 26, 23, 21, 20, and 24 respectively, and the names of the Opposite Parties, who were also Junior Assistants,

¶48

Page 5 of 7

¶49

are placed at Serial Nos. 10 to 17 in the gradation list at Annexure-3, above the Petitioners.

¶50

It is not in dispute that the gradation list of the Junior Assistants, is the basis of up-gradation to Sr. Assistants, was never assailed by the Petitioners. Further in the counter affidavit, a specific stand has been taken by the CDA that so far as the upgradation of the private Opposite Parties to the cadre of Senior Assistant is concerned, the up-gradation was on the basis of the respective position in the gradation list of Jr. Assistants. And, since the Petitioners were admittedly below the Opposite Parties in the gradation list for Jr. Assistants, their cases were not considered.

¶51

However, as and when they were found suitable, they have since been promoted, as noted.

¶52

No response is filed to the additional affidavit indicating the circulation of the gradation list and the assertion in the counter that the up-gradation was made on the basis of the placement in the feeder cadre, i.e., the Junior Assistant is also not controvert.

¶53

On considering the rival submissions and perspicuous analysis of materials on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the act of the Opposite Party in upgrading the private Opposite

¶54

Page 6 of 7

¶55

Parties to the rank of Sr. Assistants ahead of Petitioners and marks of discrimination or arbitrariness, warranting interference of this Court.

¶56