IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15334 of 2014 Nirmal Kumar Dash …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.R. Dash, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 13.07.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to; i) Admit the Writ Petition; ii) Call for the records iii} issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the letter dtd 15.04.2014 under Annexure-5 rejecting representation under Annexure -1 with regard to regularization from the date of reinstatement i.e. on 19.11.2010 to date of superannuation i.e. on 30.9.2012 shall not be quashed; If the Opp. Parties do not file show cause or show insufficient cause issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order under Annexure - 5 after declaring the same as illegal ; And further be pleased to promote the Petitioner from the. post of E4 grade to E-5 grade from the date when it fell due to him; And further be pleased to hold the date of reinstatement i.e. on 19.11.2010 to date of superannuation i.e. on 30.9.2012 as duty as admissible under law; And further issue a Writ/ Writs in the nature of Writ of mandamus by directing the Opp. Party No. 1 to extend the financial benefit and continuation of service thereof due to the Petitioner; And further be pleased to pass any other order / orders , direction / directions as would be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances.” 4. It is contended that petitioner though was reinstated in his services w.e.f. 19.11.2010 vide order dated 31.01.2011 and posted as SDO, Telecommunication Sub- Division, Meramundali in E-4 Grade, but in terms of such order of re-instatement, petitioner was never extended with the financial benefit, till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2012. Prayer of the petitioner in that regard was ultimately rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.04.2014 under Annexure-5. 4.1. It is contended that since petitioner was duly re- instated in his services w.e.f. 19.11.2010 vide order dated 31.01.2011, rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the financial benefit for the period 19.11.2020 to 30.09.2012 on the ground indicated in the impugned order, is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set-aside with a direction to release the benefit. 5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 21.08.2014, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. But basing on the instruction, it is contended by Mr. S.R. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Corporation that in terms of order of re- instatement, petitioner never joined, on the ground that he has been posted under his junior. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner never joined on the face of the order of reinstatement issued on 31.01.2011 till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2012, he is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit and the same has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dtd.15.04.2014 under Annexure-5. 6. To the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner was given a posting on re-instatement, before an officer who is junior in rank to him, petitioner though made several grievance to modify the order, but the same was never acted upon till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2012. 6.1. It is accordingly contended that no fault lies with the petitioner for not joining in terms of the order of re- instatement issued on 31.01.2011. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submission made and since it is not disputed that on the face of the order of reinstatement, petitioner never joined though he raised a grievance with regard to his posting, till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2012, it is the view of this Court that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Opp. Party-Corporation in rejecting his claim and accordingly this Court is not inclined to interfere with order dtd.15.04.2014 under Annexure-5. 8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev