SANJAY PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Junior Clerk in the office of Block Education Officer, Banki-II (Dumpada), Cuttack, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 5/8/2015 under Annexure-3 passed by opposite party no.3 - Block Education Officer, Banki-II (Dampada), Cuttack in canceling the Revised Assured Career Progression benefit extended to him, vide order no. 128 dtd. 23/10/2013 under Annexure-2, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to extend such benefit to him.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was duly selected in recruitment test and accordingly sponsored to the office of the Circle Inspector of Schools, Cuttack-III Circle, Jajpur and vide office order dtd. 23/3/1991 he was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Principal DIET, Dolipur, Cuttack, pursuant to which he joined on 2/4/1991. While he was continuing in service, he passed Paper-I of Group-A and Paper-I of Group- B of the Annual Departmental Examination of Accounts conducted by the Board of Revenue, Odisha, which was held on 26/12/1995 and 27/12/1995 respectively.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. G. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dtd. 5/8/2015 in Annexure-3 withdrawing the benefit under RACP Scheme, which was made available to the petitioner vide office order dtd. 28/10/2013 under Annexure-2, has been passed without assigning any reasons and, thereby, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. While canceling the benefit admissible to the petitioner, the opposite party no.3 had taken into account the clarifications issued vide the Finance Department letter dtd. 20/1/2014 as well as School and Mass Education Department letter dtd. 1/5/2014, which are executive instructions and the same cannot have retrospective application. He further contended that in absence of any reasons, with regard to withdrawal or cancellation of the benefit extended to the petitioner, which directly or indirectly affects the conditions of service of the employees, the order so passed in Annexure-3 cannot sustain in the eye of law.