Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27188 (ORI)

Jalen Surin v. State of Odisha

2026-02-13

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

body2026
.JUDGMENT : Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging rejection of his claim to get the benefit of 2(two) advance increment because of having the Degree qualification under Annexure-11. 4. It is contended that Petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Engineer vide order of appointment issued on 08.06.1999 under Annexure-1 series issued by the Chief Engineer, RWSS, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. It is contended that while so continuing, Petitioner acquired the B.E qualification in Civil Engineering vide Annexure-2 from Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur(Rajasthan) India, the result of which was published on 25.06.2009. 4.1. It is contended that in view of the Resolution issued by the Finance Department on 14.05.2008 under Annexure-4, Petitioner on acquiring the Degree qualification became entitled to get the benefit of 2(two) advance increment. Resolution dt.14.05.2008 prescribing the guideline, more particularly Para-(iii) reads as follows: (iii) The financial benefits on account of grant of advancement increments will be available from the date of award of such degree or with effect from 01.04.2008 which ever is later. 4.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid provision, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner acquired the Degree qualification, result of which was published on 25.06.2009, he became entitled to get the benefit of 2(two) advance increment from the date of award of such Degree. However, when such benefit was not extended in his favour, Petitioner moved the Departmental Authority under Annexure-5 series, claiming extension of the benefit. 4.3. It is also contended that similarly situated Jr. Engineers after acquiring their Degree qualification were extended with the benefit of 2(two) advance increment, basing on the self-same resolution dt.14.05.2008 vide Office order dt.24.04.2012 under Annexure-7. However, such claim of the Petitioner made under Annexures-8 ultimately under Annexure-10 was rejected vide the impugned order dt.19.10.2022 under Annexure-11, so issued by Opp.Party No.4. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner admittedly has acquired the Degree qualification on 25.06.2009, under Annexure-2, in view of the resolution issued by the Finance Department on 14.05.2008 under Annexure-4, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of 2 (two) advancement increment. Not only that persons similarly situated have been extended with the benefit vide Office order dt.24.04.2012 under Anenxure-7 and Office order dt.22.03.2017 under Annexure-9. Not only that persons similarly situated have been extended with the benefit vide Office order dt.24.04.2012 under Anenxure-7 and Office order dt.22.03.2017 under Annexure-9. However, claim of the Petitioner has been rejected without proper appreciation of the stipulation contained in the resolution dt.14.05.2008 under Annexure-4. 4.5. Making all these submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that rejection of the Petitioner’s claim so made vide the impugned order under Anenxure-11 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. party Nos.2 & 4. 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner acquired the Degree qualification through Distance Mode, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the same, in view of the letter issued by the Department of Water Resources on 07.11.2013 under Annexure-H/1. 5.2. It is also contended that since Petitioner has acquired the Degree qualification from an institution through Distance Mode and the said Institution got the affiliation of the AICTE-UGC, Pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court on 22.01.2018, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit and the same has been rightly rejected. Stands taken in paragraphs-7 & 8 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: 7. That, the Petitioner joined service under Public Health Engineering Organization, Odisha as Junior Engineer having qualification as diploma in civil engineering. While in service, he acquired degree in Civil Engineering from the JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur in the session/ Year Aug-2008 in distance Mode. But in pursuance of the order dtd. 22.01.2018 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017, the degree of B. Tech in Engineering awarded by JRN, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Rajasthan, Udaipur to Sri Jalen Surien was validity by AICTE- UGC Special Examination having reference No. SE/Dec 2018/11800386 8. That, per Finance Department Resolution No.24942/F, dated 14.05.2008, some Junior Engineers acquiring degree qualification in engineering through distance education mode have been allowed two advance increments on the recommendation of the Expert committee during the year 2012. That, per Finance Department Resolution No.24942/F, dated 14.05.2008, some Junior Engineers acquiring degree qualification in engineering through distance education mode have been allowed two advance increments on the recommendation of the Expert committee during the year 2012. Subsequently, during the year 2013, Government in Water Resources Department as Nodal Department for Engineering Service, decided that Bachelor Degree acquired through distance mode of Education in Engineering field may not be considered sufficiently of higher merit and accordingly instructed that the Junior Engineers in the regular scale of pay working under various Engineering Department of Govt having degree qualifications through distance mode of education, henceforth will not be considered for grant of two advance increments. Thereafter, Junior Engineers having degree qualification in engineering field through distance mode of education have not been allowed two advance increment. The petitioner has acquired degree qualification in Civil Engineering through distance mode of education which is not considered sufficiently of higher merit and therefore deserve no consideration for grant of two advance increment as provided under FD Resolution dated 14.05.2008. Moreover, in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has not challenged the decision of the Govt. vide letter No.28664/WR, dated 07.11.2013. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that since the institution from which the Petitioner acquired the Degree qualification was recognized by AICTE-UGC, pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court on22.01.2018, Petitioner’s claim is not covered by the resolution issued by the Finance Department on 14.05.2008 under Annexure-4. It is also contended that in view of the subsequent resolution issued by the Water Resources Department on 07.11.2013 under Annexure-H/1, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit. 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the ground raised in the counter affidavit with regard to rejection of the Petitioner’s claim since is not the ground indicated in the impugned order, the same is not permissible, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, AIR 1978 SC 851 . Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-8 of the said judgment has held as follows:- “8. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, AIR 1978 SC 851 . Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-8 of the said judgment has held as follows:- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 (at p.18): "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older: A Caveat”. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Engineer vide order of appointment issued on dt.8.04.1999 under Anenxure-1 series. While so continuing as a Jr. Engineer, Petitioner acquired the Degree qualification, result of which was published on 25.06.2009 under Annexure-2, Petitioner claiming the benefit of two (2) advance increments in terms of the resolution issued on 14.05.2008 under Anenxure-4 of the Finance Department, raised his claim. 7.1. As found from the impugned order, Petitioner’s claim has been rejected only on the ground that such a provision is not reflected in ORSP Rules, 2008 or 2017. It is however found that similar benefit basing on Annexure-4 Resolution has been extended vide orders issued under Annexures-7 & 9. Since similar benefit has been extended in favour of similarly situated Jr. It is however found that similar benefit basing on Annexure-4 Resolution has been extended vide orders issued under Annexures-7 & 9. Since similar benefit has been extended in favour of similarly situated Jr. Engineers vide orders under Annexures-7 & 9, and the ground of rejection taken in the counter affidavit is not the ground taken in the impugned rejection, this Court following the decision in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill, is of the view that no such ground can be taken which is not the ground in the impugned order. 7.2. Since admittedly, Petitioner has acquired the Degree qualification on 25.06.2009 and the institution in question, as per the order of the Apex Court has been recognized by the AICTE and UGC, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-11 is not sustainable in the eye of law. No document is also enclosed in the counter showing that the institution was not recognized during the period Petitioner was prosecuting his Degree. 7.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dt.19.10.2022 under Annexure-11 and quash the same accordingly. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to extend the benefit of two (2) advance increment in favour of the Petitioner from the date of his eligibility and extend the differential entitlement as due and admissible with passing of an appropriate order. This Court directs Opp. party No.3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.