Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
Jalen Surin - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C ) No.41937 of 2023
Decided On : 13-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Employment Benefits
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Grounds for rejection in impugned order must be strictly adhered to as per the Mohinder Singh Gill ruling; no new grounds should be introduced post facto. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner claimed two advance increments after acquiring a Degree in Civil Engineering while employed as Jr. Engineer, citing precedent cases where similar claims were granted. The claim was rejected on the basis of the method of earning the degree.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned order and directed the extension of increments based on recognized eligibility from the date of qualification.
Issues: The Court addressed whether the rejection of benefits based on Degree obtained through Distance Learning was valid and if grounds for rejection met legal standards set by precedent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to the grounds mentioned in the impugned order, ruling that similar provisions had been accorded to other employees, rendering the rejection unfounded.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of; entitlement of increments to be granted.
For the Petitioner: M/s. V. Mallick, Adv.
For the Opposite Party :M/s. C.K. Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's entitlement to advance increment based on degree qualification. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. opposition to petitioner's claim based on distance education qualification. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on the validity of dismissal and grounds for approval. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's conclusion to quash the impugned order and grant benefits. (Para 8) |
.JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging rejection of his claim to get the benefit of 2(two) advance increment because of having the Degree qualification under Annexure-11.
4. It is contended that Petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Engineer vide order of appointment issued on 08.06.1999 under Annexure-1 series issued by the Chief Engineer, RWSS, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. It is contended that while so continuing, Petitioner acquired the B.E qualification in Civil Engineering vide Annexure-2 from Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur(Rajasthan) India, the result of which was published on 25.06.2009.
4.1. It is contended that in view of the Resolution issued by the Finance Department on 14.05.2008 under Annexure-4, Petitioner on acquiring the Degree qualification became entitled to get the benefit of 2(two) advance increment. Resolution dt.14.05.2008 prescribing the guideline, more particularly Para-(iii) reads as follows:
(iii) The financial benefits on account of grant of advancement increments will be available from the date of award of such degree or with effect from 01.04.2008 which ever is later.
4.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid provision, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner acquired the Degree qualification, result of which was published on 25.06.2009, he became entitled to get the benefit of 2(two) advance increment from the date of award of such Degree. However, when such benefit was not extended in his favour, Petitioner moved the Departmental Authority under Annexure-5 series, claiming extension of the benefit.
4.3. It is also contended that similarly situated Jr. Engineers after acquiring their Degree qualification were extended with the benefit of 2(two) advance increment, basing on the self-same resolution dt.14.05.2008 vide Office order dt.24.04.2012 under Annexure-7. However, such claim of the Petitioner made under Annexures-8 ultimately under Annexure-10 was rejected vide the impugned order dt.19.10.2022 under Annexure-11, so issued by Opp.Party No.4.
4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner admittedly has acquired the Degree qualification on 25.06.2009, under Annexure-2, in view of the resolution issued by the Finance Department on 14.05.2008 under Annexure-4, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of 2 (two) advancement increment. Not only that persons similarly situated have been extended with the benefit vide Office order dt.24.04.2012 under Anenxure-7 and Office order dt.22.03.2017 under Annexure-9. However, claim of the Petitioner has been rejected without proper appreciation of the stipulation contained in the resolution dt.14.05.2008 under Annexure-4.
4.5. Making all these submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that rejection of the Petitioner’s claim so made vide the impugned order under Anenxure-11 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. party Nos.2 & 4.
5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner acquired the Degree qualification through Distance Mode, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the same, in view of the letter issued by the Department of Water Resources on 07.11.2013 under Annexure-H/1.
5.2. It is also contended that since Petitioner has acqui
