IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25148 of 2024 & W.P.(C) Nos.8620 & 8625 of 2025 Bhaskar Hari Tripathy …. Petitioner Mr. R.N. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 06.03.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since all the Writ Petitions are inter-related to each other, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. W.P.(C) No.25148 of 2024 has been filed by the Petitioner challenging order dtd.21.08.2024 so passed under Annexure-12, wherein claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.724 of 2024 dtd.15.07.2024 for the year 2015-2016 was rejected. 4.1. W.P.(C) No.8620 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia challenging order dtd.06.07.2024 so p. 2 p. 2 annexed vide Annexure-13 to the Writ Petition, wherein benefit of notional pay fixation allowed in favour of the Petitioners vide order dtd.22.04.2024 under Annexure-11 was withdraw with immediate effect. 4.2. Similarly, W.P.(C) No.8625 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia challenging order dtd.28.01.2025 so enclosed under Annexure-17. As per the said order, prayer of the Petitioners for issue of no remark certificate for the period from 01.09.2014 to 25.11.2014; 26.11.2014 to 29.01.2015 and 30.01.2015 to 31.03.2015 was rejected. While declining to issue the no remark certificate, the entire period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 was treated as ‘Par not initiated.’ 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission vide advertisement dtd.05.09.2001, for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Commercial Taxes. 4.4. It is contended that even though Petitioner’s claim for appointment was recommended by the Commission along with ten(10) other eligible candidates, but basing on such recommendation, Petitioner when was not provided with appointment, the matter was carried to the Tribunal by the Petitioner by filing O.A. No.2831 of 2003. The Tribunal vide a common judgment when disposed of the p. 3 p. 3 Original Application so filed by the Petitioner, Petitioner challenged the same approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2004. 4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd.19.11.2008 under Annexure- 1 inter alia with the following directions:- “Accordingly we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal (Annexure-4) and directed that the Petitioner be given appointment to one of the posts lying vacant from out of the list of candidates selected in the recruitment made pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexure-3 for 11 posts. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order”. 4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19.11.2008 under Annexure-1, vide Notification dtd.26.03.2010, Petitioner was recommended by the Commission under Annexure-2, and in terms of the said Notification, vide office order dtd.16.08.2010 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was appointed as against the post in question. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined in his service on 28.08.2010. 4.7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though Petitioner joined in the post in question, which comes under OSFS cadre on 28.08.2010, but while preparing the final gradation list of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO) as on p. 4 p. 4 01.11.2020 under Annexure-4, Petitioner though was placed at Sl.No.142 with his date of joining in the cadre as 28.08.2010, but person appointed prior to him was placed below him at Sl. No.147. Not only that taking into account the claim made by the Petitioner before the Tribunal, so allowed by this Court in its order under Annexure-1, Petitioner on the face of his appointment and joining on 28.08.2010, was extended with the benefit of notional pay at par with his juniors vide order dtd.22.04.2024, so enclosed as Annexure-11 in W.P.(C) No.8620 of 2025. However, such benefit of notional pay fixation allowed vide order dtd.22.04.2024, when was cancelled and withdrawn vide order dtd.06.07.2024, W.P.(C) No.8620 of 2025 was filed challenging the same. 4.8. It is contended that since benefit of notional pay at par with his juniors was allowed vide order dtd.22.04.2024 under Annexure-11, the same could not have been withdrawn vide order dtd.06.07.2024 under Annexure-13 without following the principle of natural justice and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that order dtd.06.07.2024 requires interference of this Court. 4.9. Similarly, Petitioner claiming the benefit of further promotion to the rank of OT&AS w.e.f. 07.02.2014 and OFS-1 (TB) w.e.f. 05.01.2021 approached this Court by p. 5 p. 5 filing W.P.(C) No.27269 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.16.09.2021 when disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction on the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, to give promotion to the Petitioner to the rank of OT & AS from 07.02.2014 and OFS-1(JB) from 05.01.2021, State being aggrieved by such order, filed Writ Appeal No.724 of 2024. 4.10. The Writ Appeal in question was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd.15.07.2024 under Annexure-11 inter alia with the following order so contained in Para-18:- “18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, since the persons junior to the respondent have already been granted promotion with effect from 07.02.2014, we direct that the respondent’s case be considered by a specially constituted DPC for his promotion to the OT&AS cadre for the years 2015 and 2016. If he is found eligible for promotion to the rank of OT&AS cadre in the meeting held for the year 2015 or 2016, let him be granted such promotion accordingly. It is further clarified that the respondent’s case for promotion to the Odisha Finance Service-1, Junior Branch (JB) shall be considered for promotion keeping in mind the date with effect from which the respondent’s juniors have been granted such promotion and he became eligible for such promotion.”. 4.11. It is contended that this Court in Writ Appeal though directed the concerned authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of OT & AS Cadre for the year 2015 and 2016, but without proper appreciation of the direction so issued, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion for the year 2015 and 2016 was rejected vide p. 6 p. 6 the impugned order dtd.21.08.2024, so impugned in W.P.(C) No.25148 of 2024. 4.12. 4.12. It is also contended that after such rejection of his claim vide order dtd.21.08.2024, Petitioner when made a representation on 23.08.2024 with a prayer to reconsider his case taking into account the CCRs / PARs for the period from 2010-11 to 2015-16, but the same was also rejected vide the impugned communication dtd.28.01.2025, which is assailed in W.P.(C) No.8625 of 2025. 4.13.While assailing the orders impugned in all the three Writ Petitions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.11.2008, Petitioner was provided with appointment vide order dtd.16.08.2010, where he joined on 28.08.2010, Petitioner’s seniority is required to be counted from the date persons similarly situated were appointed as against the post in question pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2001. 4.14.It is also contended that taking into account the fact that Petitioner’s appointment was delayed, Opposite Parties on their own allowed the benefit of notional pay at par with his juniors vide order dtd.22.04.2024. Hence, it is to be held that the authorities allowed the benefit of seniority in favour of the Petitioner from the date persons similarly situated were extended with the benefit of p. 7 p. 7 appointment pursuant to the advertisement in question. Order dtd.22.04.2024 so enclosed as Annexure-11 in W.P.(C) No.8620 of 2025 reads as follows:- “In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to say that as per the gradation list dated 03.01.2012 and appointment order against the post of ACTO, Sri Bhaskar Hari Tripathy maybe allowed notional pay at par with his junior(s)”. 4.15. Not only that even though Petitioner was appointed vide order dtd.16.08.2010, with his date of joining on 28.08.2010, Petitioner was given his due seniority in the gradation list of ACTO as on 01.11.2020 so published under Annexure-4 in W.P.(C) No.25148 of 2024. It is accordingly contended that since vide order dtd.22.04.2024, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of notional pay at par with his juniors and he was placed above his juniors in the gradation list published under Annexure-4, it is to held that Petitioner’s seniority over his juniors was duly accepted and Petitioner’s claim for promotion to OT & AS cadre and OFS-1(JB) could not have been rejected for the year 2015 and 2016 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.724 of 2024 vide the impugned order dtd.21.08.2024. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that Petitioner does not want to press his claim, so far as the claim for promotion for the year 2015 is concerned as p. 8 p. 8 Petitioner was not having the required residency period of 5(five) years. 4.16. However, it is contended that for the year 2016, since Petitioner’s claim has been rejected on the ground of unavailability of CCRs/PARs, such rejection is not sustainable in the eye of law as the Petitioner has no role with regard to availability of CCRs/PARs for the preceding five years. 4.17. It is accordingly contended that appropriate order be passed taking into account the challenge made by the Petitioner in all the three Writ Petitions. 5. Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed in all the three Writ Petitions. 5.1. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State contended that since Petitioner in terms of order dtd.19.11.2008 in W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2004, was provided with appointment vide order dtd.16.08.2010 and in the said order nothing was indicated that Petitioner’s appointment is to be taken from the date persons similarly situated were appointed pursuant to the advertisement in question, Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of seniority from the date his juniors were so appointed cannot be entertained. p. 9 p. 9 5.2. It is also contended that this Court while disposing the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2004 vide order dtd.19.11.2008 under Annexure-1, never passed any order directing for extension of all service and financial benefits in favour of the Petitioner, after such appointment of the Petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement in question. Since this Court never allowed the claim of the Petitioner to get any service and financial benefits on his appointment, Petitioner’s claim to get seniority from the date his juniors got the benefit of appointment pursuant to the advertisement is completely mis-conceived and it cannot be entertained. 5.3. It is also contended that on the face of the order passed by this Court, so implemented with issuance of the order of appointment on 16.08.2010, Petitioner when was wrongly extended with the benefit of notional pay at par with his juniors vide order dtd.22.04.2024, the same was withdrawn vide order dtd.06.07.2024, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.8620 of 2025. 5.4. It is also contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.724 of 2024, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion for the year 2015 and 2016 was duly considered and rejected vide the impugned order dtd.21.08.2024 under Annexure-12, as for the year 2015, Petitioner was not having the required residency period of five years. p. 10 p. 10 5.5. It is also contended that since CCRs/PARs for the preceding five years were not made available to the DPC, claim of the Petitioner was also rejected for the year 2016 vide order dtd.21.08.2024. Not only that claim of the Petitioner for issuance of no remark certificate for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 was rightly rejected vide order dtd.28.01.2025, so impugned in W.P.(C) No.8625 of 2025. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Inspector of Commercial Taxes pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission on 05.09.2001. In the said selection process, Petitioner when was not given with the benefit of appointment on the face of the recommendation made by the Commission, the matter was carried by the Petitioner to the Tribunal by filing O.A No.2831 of 2003. 6.1 The said O.A when was dismissed, Petitioner challenging the same approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2004. The Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dtd.19.11.2008 under Annexure-1 in W.P.(C) No.25148/2024 inter alia directing the Opposite Parties to provide appointment to the Petitioner against the vacant post from out of the list of candidates selected in the recruitment, made pursuant to the advertisement in question. p. 11 p. 11 6.2 Pursuant to the said order and on the recommendation made by the Commission under Annexure-2, Petitioner was appointed vide order dtd.16.08.2010 under Annexure-3, where he joined on 28.01.2010. It is the view of this Court that since this Court while disposing W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2004 vide order dtd.19.11.2008 never passed any order directing for extension of service and financial benefits in favour of the Petitioner from the date such benefit of appointment was made in favour of other selected and recommended candidates and no such thing was indicated in the order of appointment issued on 16.05.2010, Petitioner’s claim to have seniority from the date his juniors got the benefit pursuant to the selection process initiated in the year 2001, as per considered view of this Court is not at all entertainable. 6.3. It is also the view of this Court that the order passed by this Court on 19.11.2008 when was implemented vide order dtd.16.08.2010, Petitioner without any objection submitted his joining on 28.08.2010, in the post in question. Since Petitioner joined in the post on 28.08.2010, without raising any objection, he cannot claim the benefit of seniority over the persons appointed earlier, which was also never allowed by this Court in its order dtd.19.11.2008. 6.4. It is also the view of this Court that on the face of order passed by this Court on 19.11.2008, Petitioner p. 12 p. 12 could not have been extended with the benefit of notional pay at par with his juniors vide order dtd.22.04.2024. It is the view of this Court that such order has been rightly recalled vide order dtd.06.07.2024 under Annexure-13, which is impugned in W.P.(C) No.8620 of 2025. This Court accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the order dtd.26.07.2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition. 6.5. So far as rejection of the Petitioners’ claim to get the benefit of promotion for the year 2016 vide order dtd.21.08.2024 so impugned in W.P.(C) No.25148 of 2024, this Court is of the view that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.724 of 2024 and on due consideration of his claim for the year 2016, was rejected on the ground of unavailability of CCRs/PARs. This Court is unable to accept the order of rejection for the year 2016 as Petitioner has no role with regard to production of the CCRs/ PARs and it is within the domain of the employer to produce the same. 6.6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of promotion for the year 2016 vide the impugned order dtd.21.08.2024 under Annexure-12 in W.P.(C) No.25148 of 2024. While quashing the order, so far rejection for the year 2016 is concerned, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1–Principal Secretary to the Govt. in the Department Finance, to make available the CCRs/PARs for the preceding five years, for consideration p. 13 p. 13 of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of the promotion for the year 2016 in terms of the order dtd.15.07.2024 in W.A. No.724 of 2024, by holding a review DPC of the DPC dtd.08.08.2024 and take consequential action basing on the recommendation of the review DPC. This Court in view of the aforesaid analysis is also inclined to quash the rejection of the Petitioners’ claim to get the no remark certificate for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 vide order dtd.28.01.2025 under Annexure-17 so impugned in W.P.(C) No.8625 of 2025 and quash the same accordingly. 6.7. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to complete the entire exercise so far as consideration of the claim for promotion for the year 2016, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. All the Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 8. Photocopy of the order be placed in other connected Writ Petitions. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat