Disposed¶14

Rameswar Padhi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Sept 2025WP(C)/24147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court 2025 disposal of W.P.(C) 24147/2025 (Rameswar Padhi v. State of Odisha): antedating of promotion Jr. SES to Sr. SES w.e.f. 22.04.2006; parity with similarly situated employees; representation dated 06.12.2024; Tribunal O.A. No. 3885(C)/2012 batch (16.09.2016); W.P.(C) 28136, 28235, 28133 of 2021; SLP(C) Diary 16580/2024, 16586/2024 (25.10.2024); eight-week deadline to decide and reply in writing; contentions kept open; no costs; judge Dixit Krishna Shripad; AGA S.K. Jee; counsel T.K. Nayak.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: eight weeks fixed for the opposite parties to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2024 and to inform him of the decision in writing; liberty to the answering OP to seek necessary information/documents without brooking delay; all contentions kept open; no costs.

Rameswar Padhi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties should grant the petitioner benefits by antedating his promotion from the Jr. SES cadre to the Sr. SES cadre w.e.f. 22.04.2006, as given to similarly situated named employees, together with consequential benefits, in terms of the Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 3885(C)/2012 (batch) and subsequent High Court and Supreme Court affirmations. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of, fixing a period of eight weeks for the opposite parties to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2024 and to inform the petitioner of the decision taken in writing; all contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The answering opposite party may solicit any information or documents required from the petitioner for due consideration of the subject representation, subject to the rider that delay shall not thereby be brooked.

¶15

Key takeaways

The learned AGA, having initially resisted the petition on grounds of estoppel, waiver and the like, fairly agreed to instruct his clients to look into the petitioner's grievance aired in the subject representation in a time bound way and in accordance with law, with all contentions kept open, which the Court recorded as appreciable.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.), W.P.(C) No. 24147 of 2025, decided 22.09.2025: Rameswar Padhi had sought, via representation dated 06.12.2024, antedating of his promotion from the Jr. SES to the Sr. SES cadre w.e.f. 22.04.2006 with consequential benefits, parity being claimed with named similarly situated employees in terms of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 3885(C)/2012 and batch (decided 16.09.2016), the High Court's decisions in W.P.(C) Nos. 28136, 28235 and 28133 of 2021, and the Supreme Court's affirmation in SLP(C) Diary Nos. 16580 and 16586 of 2024 (25.10.2024). Counsel submitted that nothing had been implemented qua the petitioner. The learned AGA, after initial resistance on estoppel/waiver grounds, agreed to have the OPs examine the grievance time-bound and in accordance with law. The Court disposed of the petition fixing eight weeks for a decision to be taken and communicated in writing, permitted the OPs to seek requisite information/documents without brooking delay, kept all contentions open, and imposed no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.24147 of 2025

¶2

Rameswar Padhi …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and …. Opposite Parties others Represented by Adv.Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶5

ORDER

¶6

22.09.2025

¶7

Order No. 01. Petitioner in his representation dated 06.12.2024 has made the following request.

¶8

“....direct the opp. parties to grant similar benefits by antedating the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Jr. SES to Sr. SES w.e.f. 22.04.2006 as has been given to similarly situated persons viz- Dillip Kumar Badapanda, Kartik Dash, Sudhansu Kumar Choudhury, Sovarani Mohanty, Jambubati Gouda, Umakanta Panda, Prabino Kumar Patro, Pratyusa Kumar Das and others vide Annexure-4 series in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.

¶9

3885(c)/2012 and batch, decided on 16.09.2016 and this Hon'ble court in W.P.(C) No. 28136 of 2021, W.P.(C)No. 28235/2021 & W.P.(C)No.28133 /2021, decided on 27.09.2021, 25.11.2021 and 28.10.2021, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP(C) Diary No. 16580/2024 and SLP(C) Diary No. 16586/2024 (decided on 25.10.2024) vide Annexure-6 and grant all consequential benefits within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court ;”

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in OA No.3885 (C) of

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

2012 and ultimately the affirmation of the said order at the hands of the Apex Court in SLP Diary Nos.16580 of 2024 and 16586 of 2024 disposed of on 25.10.2024. He submits that even though the Tribunal directed sanctioning of similar benefits to other similarly placed employees, nothing has been done in that connection at least as against his client, and therefore, intervention of Writ Court is warranted.

¶13

Learned AGA, appearing for the OPs, having resisted the petition on the grounds of estoppels, waiver and the like, now fairly agrees to instruct his clients to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as has been aired in the subject representation, in a time bound way and in accordance with law, subject to all contentions of the parties being kept open. This is appreciable.

¶14

In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed off fixing a period of eight (8) weeks for taking the decision in the matter and to inform the decision taken to the petitioner in writing. All contentions are kept open.

¶15

It is open to the answering OP to solicit any information or document from side of the petitioner, as are required for due consideration of the subject representation; however, subject to the rider that in that guise the delay shall not be brooked.

¶16

Now, no costs.

¶17

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High CourtPrasanta Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:11:21

¶20

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Rameswar Padhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameswar Padhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratibha Prusty Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Kumar Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Moti Dei Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Balimela Hydro Electric Project Vs Chair Person,Up State Micro and Small Enterprises

Priyadarsini Das Vs Union of India

Lalit Mohan Panda Vs State of Odisha