AJIT NARAYAN MOHAPATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-3
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 07,2020

Ajit Narayan Mohapatra Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BISWANATH RATH,J. - (1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed inter alia for the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to :- a) admit the writ petition. b) call for the records. c) issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties as to why the letter dtd.14.2.2006 under Annexure- 7 shall not be quashed and the petitioner shall not be promoted to the post of A.D.I.G. of C.I.S.F., w.e.f. the date when his Junior in the cadre of Sr. Commandant have been given promotion to the post of A.D.I.G. if required by holding a review DPC and to declare the preparation of the extended panel as unlawful and invalid as the said panel lost its identity on the end of the calendar year i.e., 31st December, 2005. The scale of pay of the petitioner be fixed in the post of Additional DIG, w.e.f 1.2.2006 and the financial benefit be provided to the petitioner along with the consequential financial benefit till date of superannuation and other post retirement benefits. d) if the opposite parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in quashing the letter dtd.14.2.2006 under Annexure-7 and direct the opp. parties to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of A.D.I.G. of C.I.S.F., if required by holding a review D.P.C. from the date when his Junior in the cadre of Sr. Commandant have been given promotion to the post of A.D.I.G. and to declare the preparation of extended panel as unlawful and invalid as the same has lost its identity on the end of the calendar year i.e. 31st December, 2005. The scale of pay of the petitioner be fixed in the post of Additional DIG, w.e.f. 1.2.2006 and the financial benefit be provided to the petitioner along with the consequential financial benefit till date of superannuation and other post retirement benefits. And pass such other order(s) which will be deemed fit and proper for the ends of complete justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray."
(2.) Heard Mr.U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 4.
(3.) Writ petition and the prayer based therein raises a question as to if rejection of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Deputy Inspector General on the basis of un-communicated C.C.R. permissible in the eye of law? Referring to the prayer after two stages of amendment being allowed by this Court, Sri Samal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further referring to the C.C.R. for the year 2002-03 marked as "Good" having not been communicated to the petitioner contended that non-communication of C.C.R. for a particular year could not have an adverse effect in the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional Deputy Inspector General (A.D.I.G.), Central Industrial Security Force. It is taking this Court to the factual aspect involving herein Sri Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner has been promoted to the post of A.D.I.G. on 2.4.2007, contended that had the non-communicated adverse entry for the year 2002-2003 been ignored, the petitioner would have been promoted at the minimum from 01.02.2006, i.e. since when his immediate junior Mr.Ved Prakash was promoted. Referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vrs. Union of India and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, which was also being considered in the case of Anil Kumar Vrs. Union of India and others, (2019) 4 SCC 276, referring to paragraphs-18 and 20 therein. Sri Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decisions indicated hereinabove have direct application to the case of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner deserves reliefs sought for.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.