WP(C)/21283/2021 of DR. BABAJI CHARAN NAYAK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026 Order No.14

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Pursuant to order dtd.10.08.2026, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the DACP scheme is already in record under Annexure-2.

3. Heard Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ applicable and direct to quash the order dated 28.01.2021, passed by the Op.no-3, with regard to the promotion under 3rd DACP with effect from 08.03.2019, after completion of

21 of service, by taking into consideration of the fact that similarly situated persons have already availed the said promotional benefits along with the provisions of Leave Rule relating to Extra-ordinary leave, as deemed just and proper. And further direct the O.P. No. 3 to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner for giving promotion under 3rd DACP, with effect from 08.03.2019 as deemed just and proper, as completely illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. And pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit proper in the bonafide interest of justice. And for which act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

5. It is contended that Petitioner entered into service as an Assistant Surgeon, where he joined on 07.4.1997 so reflected in the service book of the Petitioner enclosed as Annexure-A to the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner on 12.08.2025.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the notification issued by the H & F.W Department on 08.03.2019 under Annexure-2, Govt. took a decision to implement Dynamic Assured Career Progress (DACP) Scheme for the Medical Officers providing them three (3) assured promotion after 7 years, 14 years and 21 years of service, to be counted from the direct entry level.

5.2. It is contended that by the time notification dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-2 was issued, taking into account the date of appointment of the Petitioner as 07.04.1997, he had already completed the required 21 years of continuous service to get the benefit of 3rd DACP.

5.3. It is contended that on the face of such stipulation contained in notification dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-2, when Petitioner was not extended with the benefit of 3rd DACP w.e.f.08.03.2019, he made a representation before Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-8. As no decision was taken on such claim of the Petitioner, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 31079 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.19.11.2020 when directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim so far as sanction of 3rd DACP is concerned, the same was rejected by Opp. Party No. 1 vide the impugned order dtd.28.01.2021 under Annexure-10 on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required 21 years of continuous service, as Petitioner after his joining in Govt. service on 07.04.1997, prosecuted P.G. for the period from 17.12.1997 to 15.01.2021. It was also held, while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim that since Petitioner prosecuted P.G. for the period from 17.12.1997 to 15.01.2021 in violation of Rule 180 of Odisha Service Code, that period cannot be taken into consideration as continuous service for the purpose of sanction of DACP.

5.4. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though as per Rule 180 of the Odisha Service Code an Assistant Surgeon is entitled for study leave if he prosecutes P.G. course after completion of 5 years of regular service, but Petitioner after his joining as an Assistant Surgeon on 07.04.1997, was allowed to undergo P.G. course for the period from 17.12.1997 to 15.01.2021. Not only that the said period was also sanctioned with grant of extra ordinary leave vide order dtd.05.05.2007 under Annexure-4. While sanctioning the said period as extra ordinary leave, the said period was directed to be taken into account for the purpose of sanction of increment under Rule 79(b)(ii) of the Odisha Service Code.

5.5. It is also contended that even though claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of 3rd DACP was rejected on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required 21 years of service as on 08.03.2019 because of the period undergone in prosecuting PG, but taking his date of appointment as 07.04.1997, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of 4th DACP w.e.f.20.04.2023 vide order dtd.27.09.2023, so enclosed as Annexure-I to the objection filed by the Petitioner on dtd.09.02.2026.

5.6. It is contended that since Petitioner by taking his date of appointment as 07.04.1997, was extended with the benefit of 4th DACP w.e.f.20.04.2023 i.e. on completion of 25 years of continuous service, the said principle should have been applied while extending the benefit of 3rd DACP, which the Petitioner was entitled to get w.e.f.08.03.2019. But on the plea that the period from 17.12.1997 to 15.01.2021 cannot be taken as continuous service, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.28.01.2021 under Annexure-10.

5.7. It is accordingly contended that in view of the extension of the benefit of 4th DACP on completion of 25 years of continuous service w.e.f.07.04.1997 so sanctioned vide order dtd.27.09.2023 and the sanction of the study leave vide order dtd.05.05.2007 under

Annexure-4, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of 3rd DACP w.e.f.08.03.2019 was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-10, is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable for interference of this Court.

6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the affidavit filed by the Department. It is contended that since Petitioner after his joining as an Assistant Surgeon on 07.04.1997, continued P.G. for the period from 17.12.1997 to 15.01.2021, which was not permissible in view of the stipulation contained under Rule 180 of the Odisha Service Code, the said period cannot be taken as continuous service for the purpose of sanction of 3rd DACP in terms of notification dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-2.

6.1. It is contended that as per Annexure-2, an Assistant Surgeon is entitled to get the benefit of 3rd DACP on completion of 21 years of continuous service from the entry level. Since Petitioner after his joining as an Assistant Surgeon on 07.04.1997, prosecuted P.G. for the period 17.12.1997 to 15.01.2021 in violation of the provisions contained under Rule 180 of the Odisha Service Code, the said period cannot be taken as continuous service for the purpose of sanction of 3rd DACP. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner entered into service as an Assistant Surgeon where he joined on 07.04.1997 so available in the document enclosed as Annexure-A to the affidavit filed by the Petitioner on 12.01.2025. It is also found that Petitioner after his joining on 07.04.1997 as an Assistant Surgeon, was allowed to undergo P.G. for the period from 17.12.1997 to 15.01.2021.

7.1. It is also found that the said period was sanctioned as extra ordinary leave and Petitioner was held entitled to get the benefit of increment as due and admissible vide order dtd.05.05.2007 under Annexure-4. However, on the ground that the period Petitioner undergo the P.G. since was made in violation of Rule 180 of the Odisha Service Code, Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of 3rd DACP w.e.f.08.03.2019 was rejected.

7.2. However, it is found that vide order dtd.27.05.2023 under Annexure-I to the objection filed on 09.02.2026, Petitioner has been extended with the benefit of 4th DACP, which fell due on completion of 25 years of continuous service w.e.f.20.04.2023. In the said order, Petitioner’s date of initial appointment has been taken as 07.04.1997. Since Petitioner on the face of the provisions contained under Rule 180 of the Odisha Service Code was allowed to undergo the P.G. course for the period from 17.12.1997 to 15.01.2021 and the said period was sanctioned as extra ordinary leave vide order under Annexure-4 and by holding the Petitioner entitled to get the benefit of increment, this Court is of the view that the said period is required to be treated as continuous service.

7.3. Not only that since by treating the initial date of appointment of the Petitioner as 07.04.1997, Petitioner has been extended with the benefit of 4th DACP w.e.f.20.04.2023 vide order dtd.27.09.2023 of

Opp. Party No. 1, which fell due on completion of 25 years of service from initial date of entry, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of 3rd DACP has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.28.01.2021 under Annexure-10 cannot sustain legal scrutiny. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the said order and while quashing the same, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend the benefit of 3rd DACP in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f.08.03.2019 by taking his initial date of appointment as 07.04.1997. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend the benefit with release of consequential financial benefits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2026 11:32:51 Signature Not Verified