Nanda Kishor Pal State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Praharaj, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of alleged contemners and submits, there has been compliance. By order dated 19th February, 2018 there was direction to review the withheld promotion of applicant on office memorandum dated 29th April, 2017, keeping in view observation made by the Tribunal and accordingly consider grievance of applicant in right prospective for adhoc promotion to posts of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from dates of his junior having been promoted. He submits, firstly, reasoned order dated 2nd March, 2019 was made whereby, upon consideration, one adhoc promotion in the rank of DEE, PH as per G.A. and P.G. Department O.M. no.14640 dated 4th July, 1999 was extended to applicant. As such, if applicant is still aggrieved, he can seek relief by challenging the reasoned order but same cannot be done in contempt jurisdiction.

Paragraph 3 in order dated 9th December, 2021 is reproduced below.

"3. On query from Court Mr. Roy submits, the vigilance case commenced in year 1993 and is still pending, causing his client to be deprived two promotions in the meantime. On further query from Court he submits, annexure 16 set aside and quashed by the Tribunal is office order dated 20th December, 2016. Following from said order is set out below:

"Taking into account all the material facts available on record in line with all aspects of G.A. Department circular No.14640, dtd.04.07.1995, the appointing authority considered the case of Sri Pal and decided not to allow ad hoc promotion to Opp. Party No.1, Sri Nanda Kishore Pal, AEE(PH) to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer (PH) as it will be against the public interest. Hence, the case of Sri Pal, AEE for promotion on ad hoc basis is disallowed being devoid of any merit."

Mr. Roy submits, cognizance of contempt to be taken and there be order of punishment against alleged contemners. Even the adhoc promotion given has not been made effective from the date when his client's junior was promoted to that post.

It will appear from extract of earlier order dated 9th December, 2021 that the Tribunal by its order dated 19th February, 2018 has set aside office order dated 20th December, 2016, whereby promotion was refused on ground of public interest. Public interest was that vigilance case was pending, inter alia, against applicant. In that situation was said, it would not be proper to extend promotion, adhoc or otherwise, to applicant. However, by said order dated 2nd March, 2019 the position taken by said office order dated 20th December, 2016 was altered, to give applicant one adhoc promotion. The same reason has been reiterated on vigilance case pending and therefore promotion, adhoc or otherwise to the post of Executive Engineer cannot be given.

Offices of alleged contemners appear to have initially taken the stand that promotion adhoc or otherwise is not possible. They have then said that extension of one adhoc promotion is to be given but two cannot be given for the same reason.

This contempt petition will be dealt with on adjourned date upon last opportunity given to alleged contemners to either explain why one adhoc promotion can be on the reason given or otherwise, but not two. Relevant rules/government orders/notifications/memorandum should be produced by alleged contemners to substantiate their position that only one, not two adhoc promotions can be given because of pendency of vigilance case. Liberty is given to alleged contemners to file further compliance affidavit or explanation. They may choose to not file anything, for purpose of final adjudication of the application.

List on 13th January, 2022 under the heading 'Fresh Admission'.

.................................