JUGAL KISHORE SATPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O. A. No. 2082 (c) of 1999 in the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (here -in -after referred to as 'the Tribunal ') for a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to consider his case for promotion to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) and O.A.S. Class -I (Supertime scale) with retrospective effect when opposite parties 3 and 4 were promoted as such, and for consequential financial benefits. He also sought quashing of the Government notifications dated 27 -6 -1998 and 16 -4 -1999 by which he was denied financial benefits although he was given regular promotion to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) and C.A.S. Class -I (Supertime Scale). The Tribunal by its order dated 11 -7 -2001 at Annexure -4 rejected the claim for promotion, but allowed his second prayer by directing payment of differential salary from 20 -7 -1991 in O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) and from 14 -8 -1997 in O.A.S: (Supertime Scale). In this writ petition, he seeks quashing of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal by which it refused to grant promotion with retrospective effect.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on being appointed as Deputy Collector in O.A.S. Class -II, he joined the post on 28 -7 -1971. By Revenue Department notification No. 73306 dated 10 -12 -1981 he was appointed to O.A.S. Class -I (Junior Branch) on promotion in pursuance of sub -rule (1) of Rule 10 of O.A.S. Class -I (Junior Branch) (recruitment and Appointment by Promotion) Rules, 1977. By notification No. 73313 dated 10 -12 -1981 his services were placed at the disposal of Industrial Department for appointment as Deputy Secretary to Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board, Bhubaneswar. He accordingly joined as a Deputy Secretary in the aforesaid Khadi Board. His next promotion from O.A.S. Class -I (Junior Branch) was to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch). In the year 1984 while the petitioner was continuing as Sub -divisional Officer, Baliguda, he was placed under suspension on 12 -5 -1986 and had to face a departmental proceeding. In the year 1987, a vigilance case was instituted against him. His case was not considered because of the continuance of the suspension order and pendency of the vigilance case when on 15 -10 -1986 his juniors, i.e. opposite parties 3 & 4 were considered and promoted to the cadre of O.A. S. Class -I (Senior Branch). The petitioner was acquitted on 10 -11 -1994 by the Special Judge, Sambalpur in the vigilance case (vide T.R. Case No. 38 of 1987). In the meantime, on 10 -4 -1988 he was re -instated in service. In the departmental proceeding he was awarded with the penalty of stoppage of two increments with censure. He made representation to the State Government against the aforesaid penalty and by order dated 30 -3 -1988 the State Government set aside the penalty imposed against him in the aforesaid departmental proceeding. He was never communicated with any adverse remarks, nor was his work ever adversely commented upon. He was accordingly expecting that the Government would re -consider his case for promotion when his juniors i.e. opposite parties 3 & 4 were given promotion to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) and grant all other consequential service benefits. Unfortunately, the same was not done. However the State Government by notification dated 27 -6 -1998 promoted him to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) on regular basis with effect from 20 -7 -1991. On 17 -10 -1998 the Government passed order treating his period of suspension from 12 -5 -1986 to 10 -4 -1988 as on duty with all service benefits. On 16 -4 -1999 he was promoted to Supertime Scale of O.A.S. on regular basis with effect from 14 -8 -1997 with clear stipulation that he would not be entitled to any financial benefits. In the back -drop of the aforesaid facts, the Petitioner claimed that he was illegally deprived of being promoted to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) with effect from 15 -10 -1986 and to Supertime Scale from 31 -7 -1995, the dates on which his juniors (opposite parties 3 & 4) were respectively prompted to the aforesaid facts.

(3.) THE stand of the State Government before the Tribunal was that two review meetings of the Selection Board were held on 23 -10 -1998 to consider petitioner 's retrospective promotion to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) with effect from 15 -10 -1986 and to O.A.S. (Supertime scale) wherein it was decided that the petitioner 's promotion to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) from 20 -7 -1991 and Supertime Scale with effect from 14 -8 -1997 cannot be antedated. The review D.P.C. noted that the petitioner was considered for promotion to O.A.S. Class -I (Senior Branch) in the Selection Board meeting held on 28 -2 - 1987 and was considered unsuitable. The decision not to antedate his promotion to Supertime Scales was consequent upon the decision not to antedate his promotion to Senior Branch because of which his inter see seniority fixed on the basis of his date of promotion to Senior Class -I on 20 -7 -1991 remained uncharged.