Disposed¶42

Prasanna Ku.Dash v. Dir,Hrd,O.H.P.C

Orissa HC9 Jul 2026WP(C)/25920/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

advancement pay scale; APS; first APS w.e.f. 01.09.1988; second APS w.e.f. 28.01.2004; initial date of appointment; Mechanic Gr-II; Fitter Gr-I; High Skilled-B-Mechanic; OSEB; OHPC Corporation; work-charged establishment; regularisation; counter affidavit lacking documents; quashed Annexure-6 order dated 09.03.2011; differential entitlement; Prasanna Kumar Dash; D.R. Barik; P.K. Rout; Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; W.P.(C) 25920 of 2011; Orissa High Court Cuttack.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of order dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure-6); direction to extend first APS w.e.f. 01.09.1988 with release of differential entitlements; direction to sanction second APS w.e.f. 28.01.2004 and release benefits; Opp. Party No.2 to complete the exercise within two months. ¶42

Prasanna Ku.Dash Vs Dir,Hrd,O.H.P.C — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's initial date of appointment is to be reckoned as 01.11.1972 (appointment as Mechanic Gr-II in erstwhile OSEB) or 01.12.1982 (adjustment as High Skilled-B-Mechanic) for determining eligibility for the first and second advancement pay scales. +2 more

¶19

Court's answer

As the counter affidavit encloses no documents evidencing the promotion, regularisation or upgradation dates relied upon by the Corporation, the Court is unable to accept its contention denying first APS w.e.f. 01.09.1988 and refusing second APS.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Since the Service Book (Annexure-1) records the petitioner's appointment as Mechanic Gr-II in OSEB on 01.11.1972, that date is to be taken as the initial date of appointment and the 15-year period counted from it.

¶36

Key takeaways

The ground on which first APS was sanctioned w.e.f. 01.12.1997 instead of 01.09.1988 and second APS was not sanctioned at all, as set out in the impugned order dated 09.03.2011, is not legally sustainable, and that order is quashed.ratio¶37
The Opposite Party-Corporation is directed to extend the benefit of first APS w.e.f. 01.09.1988 and release the differential entitlement as due and admissible.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Cuttack), W.P.(C) No. 25920 of 2011 - Prasanna Kumar Dash v. DIR, HRD, OHPC Ltd. & Ors. (decided 09.07.2026, Order No. 15, Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.) - Advancement Pay Scales (APS): Service Book (Annexure-1) records petitioner's appointment as Mechanic Gr-II in erstwhile OSEB on 01.11.1972; petitioner claimed first APS on completion of 15 years w.e.f. 01.09.1988 and second APS w.e.f. 28.01.2004. Corporation took 01.12.1982 (adjustment as High Skilled-B-Mechanic) as the initial date, extended first APS only w.e.f. 01.12.1997 and rejected second APS vide order dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure-6). Counter affidavit contained no documents supporting the promotion/regularisation/upgradation dates relied upon; Court declined to accept the Corporation's contention, held 01.11.1972 to be the initial date of appointment with the 15-year period counted therefrom, found the impugned order legally unsustainable, quashed it, and directed extension of first APS w.e.f. 01.09.1988 with differential entitlements and sanction of second APS w.e.f. 28.01.2004, to be implemented by Opp. Party No.2 within two months. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 25920 of 2011

¶2

Prasanna Kumar Dash

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. D.R.Barik, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

DIR, HRD, OHPC Ltd., BBSR ..... Opposite Parties & Ors. Mr. P.K. Rout, Adv.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶8

09.07.2026

¶9

Order No. 15

¶10

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶12

The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶13

“Under the circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notices to the Opp. Parties calling upon them as to why:

¶14

i) The order dated 09.03.2011 under Annexure-6Series, rejecting the claim of the petitioner shall not be quashed by holding it as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

ii) A direction shall not be issued ot the opp. Parties to extend the 1^st advancement pay scale with effect from 28.01.2004 along with the consequential financial benefits in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

iii) And any other relief/reliefs as deem fit and proper shall not be granted;

¶17

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶18

Page 1 of 6.

¶19

It is contended that Petitioner though was initially appointed as against the post of Mechanic Gr-II on 01.11.1972 so reflected in the service book of the Petitioner enclosed under Annexure-1 and he completed 15 years of regular service on 01.11.1987 and accordingly became eligible to get the benefit first advancement pay scale on completion of 15 years of regular service w.e.f. 01.09.1988 and second advancement pay scale w.e.f. 28.01.2004, but benefit of first ASP was only extended in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.1997 by the Opp. Party-Corporation, who took over the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1996 and benefit of second APS was never extended.

¶20

4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner’s initial date of appointment under the erstwhile OSEB is w.e.f. 01.11.1972, Petitioner even though was treated as an employee of the Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.1996 in view of the office order issued by the Corporation on 11.05.2006, so produced in Court by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of first advancement pay scale on completion of 15 years of service, which fall on 01.09.1988 and the second APS w.e.f.28.01.2004. But the corporation by taking the initial date of appointment of the Petitioner as 01.12.1982, that is the date when the Petitioner was allegedly adjusted against the post of High Skilled-B-Mechanic due to non-availability of the post of Fitter, Gr-1, benefit of first APS was extended w.e.f. 01.12.1997 and second APS was never extended.

¶21

4.2. It is accordingly contended that order at Annexure-6 in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of first APS w.e.f.

¶22

Page 2 of 6.

¶23

01.09.1988 and second APS w.e.f. 28.01.2004 under Annexure-6 is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court and with a direction on the Corporation to extend the benefit of first APS w.e.f. 01.09.1988 in place of 01.12.1997 and sanction the benefit of second APS w.e.f. 28.01.2004, with release of consequential differential entitlements.

¶24

Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation while supporting the impugned order on the other hand contended that Petitioner was appointed as a Mechanic Gr-II in the work charge establishment of OSEB on 01.11.1972 and thereafter he was promoted to Fitter Grade-I w.e.f. 01.09.1973 vide order dated 29.09.1973. Petitioner thereafter was regularised in OSEB w.e.f. 01.04.1980 and subsequently adjusted as against the post of High Skilled-B-Mechanic w.e.f. 01.12.1982, Petitioner’s initial date of engagement being in the contractual establishment, period of 15 years for the purpose of sanction of first APS was taken as 01.12.1982, when Petitioner was adjusted against the post of High Skilled-B-Mechanic with higher scale of pay by the then OSEB.

¶25

5.1. It is also contended that since while continuing under OSEB, Petitioner got the benefit of promotion vide order dated 29.09.1973 to the rank of Fitter, Gr-1 and was allowed higher scale of pay taking into account his upgradation to the rank of Higher Skilled-B Mechanic w.e.f. 01.12.1982, Petitioner’s initial date of engagement is to be taken as 01.12.1982.

¶26

5.2. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the action of the Corporation in extending the benefit of first APS w.e.f. 01.12.1997 by taking the initial date of

¶27

Page 3 of 6.

¶28

appointment of the Petitioner as 01.12.1982 and so also rejecting the claim for 2^nd APS.

¶29

5.3. It is also contended that since Petitioner was found not eligible to get the benefit of second APS taking into account the date of appointment as 01.12.1982, the same was never extended in his favour and was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure6.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds from the Service Book of the Petitioner so available under Annexure-1, Petitioner was appointed in the OSEB as against the post of Mechanic Gr-II, where he joined on 01.11.1972. Petitioner subsequently was promoted to the rank of Fitter Gr-I w.e.f. 01.09.1973 and as Fitter Gr-II w.e.f. 01.04.1980.

¶31

6.1. Subsequently Petitioner was adjusted as against the post of Fitter Mechanic Gr-II w.e.f. 01.03.1983 and while so continuing Petitioner became an employee under Corporation w.e.f.01.04.1996, which is not disputed. But by taking the date of initial appointment of the Petitioner as 01.12.1982. Petitioner was sanctioned with the benefit of first APS on completion of 15 years of service from that day w.e.f. 01.12.1997 and benefit of second APS was never sanctioned in his favour.

¶32

6.2. However, from the counter affidavit it is found that, no such document has been enclosed showing the promotion of the Petitioner to the rank of Fitter Mechanic Gr-I with his regularisation as against the post w.e.f. 01.04.1980. Similarly no document is available in the counter, showing that Petitioner was upgraded to the rank of Fitter Mechanic Gr-II w.e.f. 01.12.1982 and no such

¶33

Page 4 of 6.

¶34

document is also enclosed in the counter affidavit in support of the stand taken by the Corporation that Petitioner’s initial engagement is under the work-charged establishment on 01.11.1972 and was regularised in the establishment of OSEB w.e.f. 01.04.1980 and was adjusted as High Skilled-B Mechanic w.e.f. 01.12.1982. In absence of any such documents enclosed to the counter affidavit, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation with regard to denying the benefit of first APS in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.1988 and not sanctioning the benefit of second APS in his favour at all.

¶35

6.3. Since no document is enclosed to the counter affidavit showing any such benefit is extended in favour of the Petitioner, save and except the stand taken in various paragraphs of the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner with regard to the entitlement of the Petitioner to get the benefit of 1^st and 2^nd APS.

¶36

6.4. Since from the record it is available that Petitioner was duly appointed as against the post of Mechanic Gr-II in the establishment of OSEB on 01.11.1972, it is the view of this Court that the date 01.11.1972 is to be taken as the initial date of appointment of the Petitioner and period of 15 years will be counted from that date.

¶37

6.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner was sanctioned with the benefit of first APS w.e.f. 01.12.1997 in place of 01.09.1988 and was not sanctioned with the benefit of second APS at all vide the impugned order dated 09.03.2011 is not legally sustainable. Accordingly this Court while quashing order dated 09.03.2011 so issued by the Opp.

¶38

Page 5 of 6.

¶39

Party Corporation under Annexure-6, directs the Opp. PartyCorporation to extend the benefit of first APS in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.1988 and release the differential entitlement in his favour as due and admissible.

¶40

6.6. This Court further directs Opp. Party-Corporation to sanction the benefit of second APS w.e.f. 28.01.2004 and release the benefits as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner also.

¶41

6.7. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to complete the entire exercise with extension and release of the benefits so directed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶42