Rejection of claim for advancement increments based on improper grounds; adherence to stipulated eligibility rules in administrative decisions is crucial.

.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