Dr. Jugal Kishore Satapathy vs Sri D.P. Bagchi and Another

R.K. Patra, J.—This application is an offshoot of the judgment dated 26.2.2002 passed by a Bench of this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner (vide OJC No. 10471 of 2001).

The petitioner filed O.A. No. 2082 (C) of 1999 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack praying for promotional benefits including promotion to O.A.S. Class-I (Senior Bench) with retrospective effect. As the Tribunal rejected the claim, he filed writ petition (OJC No. 10471 of 2001) in this Court. This Court by judgment dated 26.2.2002 allowed the writ petition by observing inter alia as follows :

"11. In view of what has been stated above, we have no hesitation to held that the petitioner has been wronged and he merits consideration for promotion to O.A.S. Class-I (S.B.) with effect, from 15.10.1986 as well as the other consequential promotional benefits including Supper-time scale. The Tribunal clearly fell into error in not appreciating the case of the petitioner in its proper perspective. We accordingly set aside that part of the order of the Tribunal denying the petitioner retrospective promotion to O.A.S. Class-I (Senior Branch) with effect from 15.10.1986 and direct opposite parties 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to O.A.S. Class-I (Senior Branch) with effect from 15.10.1986 and to other consequential promotional benefits including Supper-time scale. This may be done within a period of two months of receipt of the order."

The specific case of the petitioner now is that the opposite parties without taking into consideration the observations made by this Court, erroneously and illegally rejected his claim for promotion to O.A.S. Class-I (Senior Branch) with effect from 15.10.1986 by letter No. 16993/Gen. dated 16.5.2002 of the Government in General Administration Department,- relevant portion of which reads as follows :

".....opposite parties No. 1 and 2 of the case considered your retrospective promotion to OAS-I (SB) through a review selection Board meeting.

The review Selection Board in its meeting held on 6.5.2002 have perused the C.C.R of Sri Satpathy from the year 1981-82 to 1985-86 an other service records. The Selection Board have reassessed the grading of your CCR and found him unsuitable for his retrospective promotion to OAS-I (Senior Branch) with effect from 15.10.1986 because of adverse entry in the CCR for the year 1981- 82. Government have also approved the recommendation of the Selection Board meeting."

Perusal of the proceeding of the Review Selection Board, as quoted above would show that the petitioner was denied promotion to the O.A.S. Class-I (Senior Branch) on the ground that there was adverse entry in his C.C.R. from the year 1981-82 to 1985-86 and other service records. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it would be appropriate for us to extract paragraph 9 of the judgment rendered in the petitioner''s writ petition. While considering the so-called adverse remarks for the year 1981-82 this Court observed as follows :

".........Although there it some adverse remark for the period from 19.8.1981 to 5.3.1982 but for the period commencing from March, 1982 to July 1982, he has been rated as an excellent officer with a remark that he deserved promotion and his integrity was beyond doubt. For the subsequent period, i.e. from 3.8.1982 to 31,3.1983 the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Southern Division) with whom the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa concurred, had noted as follows :

"My inspection revealed a lot of improvement in office work. Had done excellent work under E.R.R.P. and l. R. D. P. works with real and enthusiasm, official conduct control of staff and public relation is very good. Nothing about his integrity has come to my notice."

This being the position, the1 stray adverse remark for the period 19.8.1981 to 5.3.1982 is of little significance particularly when his entire C.C. Rs. were taken into consideration and he was given promotion to O.A.S. Class-I (S.B.) on regular basis with effect from 20.7.1991."

In paragraph 10 of the judgment, this Court further observed as follows :

"Let us now look at the entries in the C.C.R. of the petitioner relating to the year 1985. It consists of two parts. The first part pertains to the period from 28.5.1984 to 31.3.1985. the Reporting Officer has recorded his remarks for the said period as follows :

"Shri Satpathy is an officer of outstanding merit. Highly intelligent. His administrative ability is quite good. Has done good work during the period under report. Good official conduct. Nothing is heard against his integrity. Good control over saff. He is well-versed in rules of official business. Keeps his table clean.

Deserves promotion."

The Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department has noted as follows :

"Shri Satpathy is an intelligent and energetic officer."

From the aforesaid, it may be seen that there is nothing adverse against him during the first period. For the second period, i.e. from 1.4.1985 to 1.9.1985. the Reporting Officer has noted as follows ;

"His notings and draftings are excellent. He keeps his table clean. Good grasping power. Well behaved. Has good control over staff. Official conduct is satisfactory. He is an officer of outstanding ability and zeal.

Deserves promotion."

The counter-signing officer, however, has disagreed with the Reporting Officer and rated the petitioner as an average one.

xx xx xx In the aforesaid C.C.R. relating to the petitioner for the second period from 1.4.1985 to 1.9.1985 the countersigning officer has not recorded any reason as to why he disagreed with the Reporting Officer. Besides this, the same had not been admittedly communicated to the petitioner. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court extracted above, the said C.C.R. cannot be sustained and utilised against the petitioner. Moreover rating an officer as ''average'' by itself cannot be taken as an adverse Comment. Such remarks may assume significance while considering the case of the concerned officer vis-a-vis the claim of others. For the period from 10.11.1985 to 27.1.1986 and from 16.2.1986 to 31.6.1986 in the C.C.R. of the petitioner it has been noted that the aforesaid periods are too short for assessment/comments."

From the above observations made by this Court in the judgment, it may be seen that the entire C.C. Rs. of the petitioner were considered and necessary comments were made. In fact this Court did not find anything adverse so as to deny the retrospective promotion to the O.A.S. Class-I (Senior Branch) to the petitioner. The Review Selection Board seems to have sat in judgment over the observations of this Court which they could not have done.

In view of this, there is substance in the grievance of the petitioner made in this application. There is also no point in remitting the matter to the government for reconsideration.

We, accordingly, hold that the petitioner is entitled to the retrospective promotion to O.A.S. Class-I (Senior Branch) with effect from 15.10.1986. As a consequence, we direct the opposite parties to give him promotion to O.A.S. Class-I (Senior Branch) with effect from 15.10.1986 and other consequential service benefits flowing therefrom within two months of receipt of this order.

This application is accordingly allowed.

Pradip Mohanty, J.

I agree.