JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties in not considering the case of the petitioner to allow monetary benefit for the period from 01.05.1997 to 17.05.2012.

2. FACTS

The infiltrated factual matrix leading to the case of the writ petition is that the petitioner, while working as Senior Clerk in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, was reverted to the rank of Junior Clerk vide Office Order dated 30.04.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Sundergarh, opposite party no.2. The petitioner, challenging the said order of reversion, preferred an appeal under Section 23.2(b) of Orissa Civil Service (C.C.A) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as “the Rules, 1962”) vide Departmental Appeal No.9 of 1997 before this Court. Since the petitioner was reverted without having any departmental proceeding, the Appeal Committee set aside the order of reversion on 18.05.2010. Therefore, in view of the order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the Appeal Committee, the petitioner was restored to the post of Senior Clerk with effect from 13.11.1995, i.e, from the date of initial promotion to the post of Senior Clerk. On 20.10.2011, the petitioner approached the learned District Judge, Sundergarh, opposite party no.2 to allow him the financial benefit with regard to restoration of his service. On 09.10.2015, a reminder was sent by the petitioner to opposite party no.2 but on 13.05.2016, opposite party no.2 sought for clarification from opposite party no.1 regarding sanction of fund for drawal of differential pay of the petitioner for the period from 01.05.1997 to 17.05.2012. But the opposite party no.1 rejected the grievance of the petitioner vide Annexure-8. Hence, the writ petition.

3. SUBMISSIONS

Mr.Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for no fault of the petitioner, he was reverted from the post of Senior Clerk to Junior Clerk. Also there was no departmental proceeding which the petitioner had faced for such reversion. According to him, the action of the opposite party no.2 was illegal and improper.

4. Mr.Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Appeal Committee of this Court has categorically rejected the claim of the respondent and directed for restoration of the petitioner to service. When the petitioner was declared as Senior Clerk with effect from 13.11.1995 taking into account the date of his initial promotion from the post of Junior Clerk to Senior Clerk being senior to one Sukadev Toppo and Bijay Kumar Samal in the cadre of Senior Clerk, he is deemed to have continued in service from 01.05.1997 till date and as such the petitioner is entitled to back wages/differential salary for the period from 01.05.1997 to 17.05.2012. According to the petitioner, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have illegally deprived the petitioner from getting the financial benefit even if the Appeal Committee of this Court has restored his service of Senior Clerk. Thus, the principle of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated.

5. Mr.Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate, relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3, submitted that the petitioner, while working as Senior Clerk in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh, was reverted to rank of Junior Clerk for which he has preferred Departmental Appeal No.9 of 1997 before this Court. The Appeal Committee of this Court has set aside the order of reversion having arrayed as violation of principles of natural justice but it did not pass any other order towards the financial entitlement of the petitioner from the date of his reversion. Mr.Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that as the petitioner had not performed any duty in the post of Senior Clerk till his restoration, he is not entitled to any back wages/differential salary at all. So, he submitted to dismiss the writ petition.

6. POINT FOR DETERMINATION

The main point for determin