WP(C)/24359/2026 of GOBINDA CHANDRA BEHERA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 7 August 2026

ORDER

07.08.2026 Hybrid Mode

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that he has received the brief as a Legal Aid counsel.

2. It is submitted upon instruction from petitioner that the petitioner seeks direction for disposal of his ‘representation’ made to the authority, copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure-6.

The petitioner has stated Annexure-6 to be a grievance petition, which is typed out, dated 28.07.2025 and the following paragraphs are extracted:

“… In view of the above, I demand immediate action:

1. My rightful promotion to OFS Cadre with retrospective effect.

2. Payment of arrears including salary, DA, and all consequential benefits from the due date.

3. A thorough investigation into the illegal promotions and CCR fabrications. Failing which, under the provisions of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, and as guided by constitutional safeguards, you may be held personally liable. I remind you that this matter has already been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble President of India, whose intervention commands the highest administrative and legal authority. Please note, willful negligence in this regard may attract penal consequences, including imprisonment and fines, as per judicial precedents and directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisa. I urge you to act with integrity, transparency, and urgency. The Constitution does not permit injustice to Scheduled Caste communities, especially when committed by those entrusted with public service.”

3. Apparently, the above statements made in such a ‘representation’ makes no sense, it is in bad taste and also has no relevance as far as the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the cadre of ‘Odisha Finance Service’ a prestigious, Group ‘A’ service under the Government.

Evidently by writing such things in the representation, the petitioner has not shown proper conduct in writing to the Secretary of a Department, by using such language and it is still worse that the application with such content is filed before this Court seeking direction for disposal.

4. Learned Counsel engaged by the Legal Aid submits that he has no comments regarding use of such language and contents of the representation.

5. It is expected from the learned counsel being Officer of this Court would not endorse such content and language as contained in the representation and copy filed before this Court as part of annexure to the writ petition.

However, this Court takes a lenient view in not suggesting action against the petitioner. The petitioner has to understand that apart from his service particulars; casting aspersions on others and threatening them in the representation as has been done, defeats the entire purpose of seeking redressal of his grievances. Petitioner’s representation should confine to his grievance.

Since the petitioner after his retirement seeks promotion from a prior date, the petitioner if so advised may make representation wherein he has to give details of his eligibility for claiming such promotion, when he came to the zone of consideration, when the petitioner’s juniors or his colleagues at same level if have got such promotion, the date of such promotion, the relevant Rules, and other particulars.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Costs reluctantly made easy.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

Judge

Gs Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 11-Aug-2026 20:50:32 Signature Not Verified