State Of Odisha And Others vs Pradeep Acharya And Another

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J

The petitioners, who are the State functionaries, have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 221 (C) of 2011, whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order of reversion dated 10.01.2011 of opposite party no.1 from the post of Auditor to Junior Clerk and directed the present petitioners to extend all financial and service benefits of the post of Auditor from the date opposite party no.1 was reverted to the post of Junior Clerk.

The factual matrix of the case, in precise, is that, opposite party no.1, who was applicant before Tribunal, was issued with an appointment order in the post of Auditor of Cooperative Society on 22.01.2009 under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and was directed to join in the office of the Assistant Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Cuttack-I in the Pay Band-2 in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- per month. Pursuant to such appointment order, opposite party no.1 submitted his joining report on 27.01.2009. Thereafter, he was transferred from Cuttack to Dhenkanal on 11.06.2009, pursuant to which he was relieved from the post on 06.07.2009 and joined at Dhenkanal on 13.07.2009.

2.1 While continuing as such, on 15.09.2009, he submitted a representation through proper channel to absorb him in the cadre of Junior Clerk on the ground that he was unable to perform the duty of an Auditor. But, on 17.09.2009, he made another representation to withdraw his representation dated 15.09.2009. Again, he submitted a representation on 03.02.2010 through proper channel for absorbing him in the post of Junior Clerk on the ground that he is unable to perform the work assigned to him as Auditor. As opposite party no.1 was given a temporary appointment on compassionate ground and he himself represented twice declaring his grievances that he was unable to discharge the duties assigned to the post of Auditor, the same was considered by the petitioners. In the meantime, the Government in Cooperation Department in its letter dated 04.12.2010 clarified that as per Rule 7 of Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, the appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme shall be made only against a base level post either in Group-C or Group-D carrying maximum scale of pay of Rs.6000/- and Rs.3200/-in pre-revised scale respectively.

Therefore, the appointment of opposite party no.1 to the post of Auditor was not in accordance with the provisions of OCS (RA) Rules 1990. Consequentially, the Government in Cooperation Department instructed the Auditor General of Cooperative Societies-petitioner no.2 to revert opposite party no.1 from the post of Auditor to any other base level post in Group-C, by which the maximum pay scale in pre-revised scale shall not exceed Rs. 6000/- per month. Therefore, considering the representation of opposite party no.1 as well as the orders of the Government, petitioner no.2 issued order of reversion dated 10.01.2011 reverting opposite party no.1 to the post of Junior Clerk in the interest of the State as well as the distress family.

2.2 On reversion, opposite party no.1 was posted in the office of Assistant Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar against the existing vacancy, as there was no vacancy in the office of the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal in the rank of Junior Clerk. As opposite party no.1 was reverted to the post of Junior Clerk, his pay was reduced accordingly and that too in conformity with the Government guidelines. But he, instead of joining at Keonjhar, challenged the order of reversion before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No. 221 (C) of 2011. The Tribunal came to a finding that once opposite party no.1 was appointed under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as Auditor, there is no scope for change of the post. It was also observed by the Tribunal that though opposite party no.1 represented for his absorption as a Junior Clerk, yet before any action was taken on the said representation, he submitted a letter for withdrawal of the representation. Once the representation was withdrawn before any action was taken, there is no scope for petitioner no.2 to pass any order reverting opposite party no.1 to the post of Junior Clerk. Therefore, the same is not maintainable and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed petitioner no.1 to allow opposite party no.1 to function as Auditor, the post in which he was initially appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, and extended all financial and service benefits of the post of Auditor from the date of his reversion to the post of Junior Clerk within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Hence, this writ petition.

Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-petitioners admitted the fact that opposite party no.1 was appointed as an Auditor under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 on 22.01.2009, pursuant to which he joined on 27.01.2009 and continued under the Assistant Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Cuttack till 11.06.2009, when he was transferred from Cuttack to Dhenkanal and posted under petitioner no.3. Pursuant to such order of transfer, opposite party no.1 was relieved from the post on 06.07.2009 and joined at Dhenkanal on 13.07.2009. Though such appointment was on temporary basis, the matter was placed before the Government for its approval. At that point of time, it was revealed that such appointment was made in violation of Rule 7 of the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, because the appointment should be made in base level either in Group-C or Group-D and in no way the pay scale should exceed Rs.6000/- and 3000/-respectively as per the pre-revised scale. But the post of Auditor carries Pay Band-2 in the scale of pay of Rs.9,300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- per month. Therefore, the appointment of opposite party no.1 in the post of Auditor was absolutely contrary to the provisions of the Rules. More so, it is contended that opposite party no.1 had also filed a representation on 15.09.2009 for his reversion from Auditor to the post of Junior Clerk, but by filing another representation on 17.09.2009 he withdrew the representation dated 15.09.2009. But again filed a representation on 03.02.2010 through proper channel for absorbing him in the post of Junior Clerk on the ground that he is unable to perform the work assigned to him as Auditor. The same was considered and as a consequence thereof vide order dated 10.01.2011 he was reverted to the post of Junior Clerk in the interest of the State as well as the distress family and was posted in the office of Assistant Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar against the existing vacancy, as there was no vacancy in the office of the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal in the rank of Junior Clerk. Because of such order, the pay of opposite party no.1 was reduced. As the order of reversion was passed in the interest of the State as well as on the request made by the opposite party no.1, it cannot be construed to be a punishment. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of record in passing the order impugned dated 24.06.2014 allowing the opposite party no.1 to continue in the post of Auditor, for which the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

3.1 It is further contended that since opposite party no.1 was given appointment in the post of Auditor that itself is a mistake and when such mistake was revealed, the same was rectified by issuing the order of reversion dated 10.01.2011 simultaneously considering the representation filed by opposite party no.1. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed and, as such, the authority, who has committed the mistake, has got the power to rectify such mistake.

3.2 It is also contended that in spite of the order being passed allowing opposite party no.1 to join as Junior Clerk at Keonjhar, he did not carry out the same nor joined in the said post and not discharging the duty till date. Thereby, contended that opposite party no.1 cannot take advantage by not discharging his duty where he has been posted. Consequentially, claims for setting aside of the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Tribunal.

3.3 It is also contended that on consideration of the representation of opposite party no.1 dated 03.02.2010 he was finally reverted to the post of Junior Clerk from the date of his joining in the post of Auditor of Cooperative Societies. On reversion, opposite party no. 1 was posted as Junior Clerk in the Office of the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar against existing vacancy, as there was no vacant post of Junior Clerk in the office of the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal. Consequentially, he was relieved from the office of the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal, vide relieve order dated 13.01.2011, which was duly received by opposite party no.1 on 18.02.2011. Apart from that, opposite party no.1 had submitted a leave application to the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal on 17.01.2011 to allow him E.L. from 13.01.2011 to 11.02.2011 with permission to avail Government holidays on 12.02.2011 and 13.02.2011. Vide letter dated 21.01.2011 of the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal, the Opp. Party No.1 was directed to make correspondence with the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar, as he had already been relieved from the establishment of Dhenkanal on 13.01.2011. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 submitted leave application to the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar on 14.02.2011 requesting to allow him leave up to 20.03.2011. Again, on 21.03.2011, he submitted another leave application to the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar from 17.03.2011 to 10.04.2011. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 has not joined in the said post till date as Junior Clerk, as per the monthly progress report submitted by the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar.

Mr. D.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 vehemently contended that once opposite party no.1 was allowed to discharge his duty as an Auditor on compassionate ground under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, he cannot and could not have been reverted to the post of Junior Clerk. Though, he had submitted a representation at one point of time, but immediately, the same was withdrawn and, as such, the same had not been acted upon. As a consequence thereof, any order of reversion passed by the authority cannot be sustained. It is further contended that the order passed by the Tribunal, allowing the opposite party no.1 to continue in the post of Auditor, is well justified and does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. He further contended that even after transfer order was passed by authority, when opposite party no.1 went to join at Keonjhar, he was not allowed to join there.

This Court heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-petitioners and Mr. D.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 in hybrid mode and perused the records. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

The undisputed fact is that opposite party no.1 was issued with an appointment order in the post of Auditor of Cooperative Society on 22.01.2009 under Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and he was directed to join in the office of the Assistant Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Cuttack-I. Thereafter, he was transferred from Cuttack to Dhenkanal, where the authorities found that he could not have been joined in the post of Auditor, because the said post carries Pay Band-2 in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- per month. As per Rule 7 of Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, the appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme shall be made only against a base level post either in Group-C or Group-D carrying maximum scale of pay of Rs.6000/- and Rs.3200/- in pre-revised scale respectively. Therefore, the appointment of opposite party no.1 in the post of Auditor was a mistake. Simultaneously, opposite party no.1 filed a representation on 15.09.2009 for absorbing him in the cadre of Junior Clerk on the ground that he is unable to perform the duty of an Auditor. But two days after, i.e. on 17.09.2009, he filed another representation to withdraw his representation dated 15.09.2009. But again he submitted a representation on 03.02.2010 for absorbing him in the post of Junior Clerk on the ground that he is unable to perform the work assigned to him as Auditor. Therefore, for the mistake which had been committed by the authority by giving him appointment in the post of Auditor coupled with the representation filed by opposite party no.1, he was allowed to join as Junior Clerk reverting him from the post of Auditor vide order dated 10.01.2011 and was directed to join at Keonjhar. Instead of joining at Keonjhar, he remained on leave and filed an Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, without considering the facts in proper perspective, passed the order impugned holding that once opposite party no.1 was appointed under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as Auditor, there is no scope for change of the post. The Tribunal further came to an erroneous finding that once the representation of the opposite party no.1 for absorption as Junior Clerk was withdrawn before it was acted upon, there is no scope for petitioner no.2 to pass any order reverting the opposite party no.1 to the post of Junior Clerk. That itself is an error apparent on the face of the record, because the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that though opposite party no.1 had filed a representation on 15.09.2009 for absorbing him in the cadre of Junior Clerk on the ground that he is unable to perform the duty of an Auditor and two days after, i.e. on 17.09.2009 he filed another representation to withdraw his representation dated 15.09.2009, but again he submitted a representation on 03.02.2010 for absorbing him in the post of Junior Clerk on the ground that he was unable to perform the work assigned to him as Auditor. On that basis, the action has been taken reverting opposite party no.1 to the post of Junior Clerk. Thereby, the Tribunal is not justified by directing the petitioners to allow opposite party no.1 to function as Auditor, i.e., the post in which he was initially appointed under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Needless to say, even if the initial appointment of opposite party no.1 was erroneous one and such appointment was issued by the authority on mistake and subsequently if the said mistake was detected, the same can be rectified by the authority. As such, in a compassionate appointment, opposite party no.1 has no right to claim for any particular post, but he is entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment, which has not been denied to him. Rather he has been directed to join as Junior Clerk at Keonjhar, in which post till date he has not joined.

In the above premises, the short question that emerges for consideration of this Court is that if an order of appointment is made by mistake, can it be revised at a subsequent stage, when it is brought to the notice of the authority.

To have an effective adjudication of the above question, it is of relevance to take note of the literally meaning of the word ‘mistake’.

8.1 “MISTAKE” is not mere forgetfulness; it is a slip "made, not by design but, by mischance". Otherwise also the "mistake" includes an error in conduct consisting of an unintended failure to perform correctly and effectively a task intended to be duly performed. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. Rectification in the context of correction of mistake can imply the correction of an error or a removal of defect or imperfections. It implies an error, mistake or defect, which after rectification is made right to perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. Vide Maharastra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. V. Hariprasad Drupadrao Jadhao, (2006) 3 SCC 690, it has been laid down succinctly that the statutory authorities are entitled to rectify their mistakes and when such mistakes are apparent on the face of the record even no opportunity of hearing is necessary.

In West Bengal Electricity Board v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 682 : (2001) 2 SCC 451, the apex Court held that a mistake may be unilateral or mutual but it is always unintentional. If it is intentional it ceases to be a mistake.

In In Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commr. Trade Tax, U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 439, the apex Court ruled that the word ‘mistake’ means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception.

In the case of State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh, AIR 1964 SC 521, the respondents were officiating Tahasildars in the erstwhile State of Pepsu. By notification dated October 23, 1956 made by the Financial Commissioner of Pepsu they were confirmed as Tahasildars with immediate effect. No posts were, however, available at that time in which the respondents could be confirmed. The Supreme Court held that there being no vacancies in which the confirmation could take place, the order of the Financial Commissioner confirming the respondent as permanent Tahsildars must be held to be wholly void. It was further held that where a Government servant has no right to a post or to a particular status, though an authority under the Government acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person a status which it was not entitled to give, he will not in law be deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given the particular status.

In the case of Sundar Lal and others v. State of Punjab, 1970 S.L.R. 59, a full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court indicated that if owing to some bona fide mistake the Government has taken a decision regarding confirmation of an officer, it can certainly revise its decision at a subsequent stage, when the mistake comes to its notice.

In the case of K.B. Sharma v. Transport Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1968 Allahabad 276, it was observed that an order of confirmation, if passed under some mistake, could certainly be revised with a view to correct the mistake.

In M/s. Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. Haridas & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1480, the apex Court held as follows:-

“The High Court proceeded on the basis that in absence of the specific provision the second show cause notice was impermissible. It failed to consider that there was no statutory interdict in this behalf. An administrative order can be recalled. A mistake can be rectified.”

Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav v. Secretary, Late S.G.P. Mandal & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3502; M.S. Patil v. Gulbarga University & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3783, and Jayanti Nanda v. State of Odisha and others, 2022 (I) OLR 1048.

Keeping in view the ratio decided in the above noted cases, this Court has also taken similar view in Shri Udayanath Jena v. State of Orissa, 1974 (1) C.W.R. 587 and came to hold that if the mistake was rectified by the authority when it came to its knowledge, no illegality or irregularity can be said to have been committed in setting aside the selection and engagement made in favour of the petitioner.

In view of the facts and law, as discussed above, the Tribunal has committed a gross error on the face of the record. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

At this juncture, it is of worthwhile to note that in course of hearing, this Court on 23.06.2022 passed the following order:-

“This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate seeks time to obtain instructions why the petitioner has not been continuing as Junior Assistant after he was reverted back that post.

List this matter after two weeks.”

In compliance thereto, an additional affidavit was filed by the State and accordingly this Court passed the following order on 03.08.2022:-

“This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

In compliance of the Order dated 23.06.2022, an Additional Affidavit has been filed by the State specifically contending that the Opposite Party No.1 expressed inability to perform the duty of an Auditor and prayed to absorb him in the post of Junior Clerk in the establishment of Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal. Considering his representation, Opposite Party No.1 was finally reverted to the post of Junior Clerk from the date of his joining in the post of Auditor of Cooperative Societies. On reversion, Opp. Party No.1 was posted as Junior Clerk in the Office of the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar against existing vacancy, as there was no vacant post in the Office of the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal. The Opposite Party No.1 was relieved from the office of the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal on 13.01.2011. The said relieve Order was duly received by Opposite Party No.1 on 18.02.2011. Opposite Party No.1 had also submitted application before the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal to allow him E.L. from 13.01.2011 to 11.02.2011 with permission to avail Government holidays on 12.02.2011 and 13.02.2011. Thereafter, vide letter dated 21.01.2011, the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal informed the Opposite Party No.1 to make correspondence with the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar, as he was relieved from the establishment of Dhenkanal on 13.01.2011. Again, the Opposite Party No.1 submitted leave application to the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar on 14.02.2011 requesting to allow him leave upto 20.03.2011. Again on 21.03.2011, he submitted another application to the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle for leave from 17.03.2011 to 10.04.2011. Since then, Opposite Party No.1 has never joined and is absconded till date. Though the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar, vide letter dated 06.09.2011 was intimated and required his leave address and telephone number, but Opposite Party No.1 has not joined in the office of the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar in the post of Junior Clerk as on date, as per the monthly progress report of the Authority.

Mr. D.K. Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1 states that he has received the Additional Affidavit in Court today and wants to give reply to the same, by the next date.

Call this matter after two weeks. Reply, if any, be filed in the meantime.”

On 27.04.2023, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 undertook to file an affidavit in compliance to the order dated 03.08.2022 and accordingly on 02.08.2023 an affidavit was filed by opposite party no.1. Accordingly, this Court, vide order dated 02.08.2023, passed the following order:-

“This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. D.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 files an affidavit, in reply to the affidavit filed by the petitioners, in Court today, which is taken on record.

In compliance of the order dated 23.06.2022, Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners filed an affidavit wherein it has been stated that opposite party no.1 was appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and on his request was allowed to continue as a Junior Clerk. In the said affidavit, it has been indicated that since vacancy was not available in Dhenkanal, he was posted at Keonjhar, but did not choose to join there. But this fact has been refuted in the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.1.

In the above view of the matter, this Court directs opposite party no.1 to appear before this Court on 09.08.2023 and by that time Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners shall obtain instructions as to whether any vacancy is available at Kalahandi, Koraput or Malkangiri, so that opposite party no.1 can be adjusted there.

List this matter on 09.08.2023.

Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date of listing.”

In compliance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, opposite party no.1 appeared in person on 09.08.2023. However, on the said date two affidavits were filed, one by petitioner no.2 and one by opposite party no.1. In the affidavit filed by petitioner no.2 at paragraphs 2 to 6 it was stated as follows:-

“2. That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.08.2023 has directed the State Counsel to obtain instruction as to whether any vacancy is available at Kalahandi, Koraput or Malkangiri, so that the Opp. Party No.1 can be adjusted there.

That pursuant to order dated 02.08.2023, this affidavit is being filed.

That it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to Order No.1084, dated 21.02.2019 of the Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, the post of Junior Clerk has been re-designated as Junior Assistant (Coop). Xerox copy of Order No.1084, dated 21.02.2019 is filed herewith as Annexure-11.

That it is respectfully submitted that the vacancy position of Junior Clerk as directed by the Hon'ble Court dated 02.08.2023 is as follows:-

Sl.

No

Name  of  the  Asst.

AGCS Circle

No         of

Vacancy

Remarks

01

Kalahandi

03

02

Koraput

02

03

Malkangiri

This Circle     is yet   to   be operation

al/ functional

That it is respectfully submitted that the copy of the list showing the State wise vacancy position of the Junior Assistant (Coop) as on 01.08.2023 is filed herewith as Annexure-12.”

19.1 Similarly, in the affidavit filed by opposite party no.1 at paragraphs 2 to 4 it was stated as follows:-

“2. That as per the order dated 02.08.2023 of this Hon'ble Court passed in the aforesaid case, I have appeared before this Hon'ble Court today i.e. 09.08.2023. I have gone through the entire proceedings in my case and the arguments advanced by both the parties.

That during the course of hearing the counsel for the petitioner-State submitted that there are vacancies at Koraput, Jeypore and Bhawanipatna.

That the petitioner is ready and willing to join at Jeypore. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to join at Jeypore.”

In view of such position, since opposite party no.1 has already expressed that he is ready and willing to join at Jeypore in the district of Koraput and may be allowed to join there, this Court directs the petitioners to allow opposite party no.1 to join at Jeypore, Koraput, instead of Keonjhar, in the post of Junior Clerk now re-designated as Junior Assistant against the existing vacancy. From the date of joining he will get the regular benefits, as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. But for the intervening period, i.e., from 10.01.2011 till the date of joining, he shall not be entitled to get any financial benefit, as he had absconded and not discharged his duty. As a consequence thereof, the petitioners are directed to issue fresh order for enabling opposite party no.1 to join at Jeypore in the district of Koraput within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of this judgment.

Resultantly, the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 221 (C) of 2011 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.

Thus, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

.……………………………….