The Orissa High Court clarified that a benevolent circular, granting promotional or pecuniary benefits to government employees, operates retrospectively when denial of training opportunity is not attributable to the employee. The Court set aside the denial of the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) benefit on the ground that the government’s own omission could not be used to penalize the petitioner. This decision reaffirms and applies Supreme Court precedent, strengthening the position of employees in service law matters, and can be used as binding authority within Odisha.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/6807/2022 of Abhimanyu Panda Vs State of Odisha |
| CNR | ODHC010165582022 |
| Date of Registration | 15-03-2022 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Odisha; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court principles from CCE v. Mysore Electricals and CCE v. Wood Craft Products |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Public Employment—Promotions; Applicability of Circulars) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a beneficial circular must be given retrospective effect, relying on Supreme Court authority. Where denial of training was not due to employee fault, the government cannot use such denial to withhold promotional or pecuniary benefits. The fixation of pay and denial of 3rd MACP on the ground of not passing training, when opportunity was never offered, is unsustainable. The relevant government circular is clarificatory and operates retrospectively, benefitting all similarly situated employees. The Collector’s order was set aside and all consequential benefits directed to be granted within three months. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Established principle that beneficial circulars operate retrospectively; clarificatory notifications clarify implicit law and so apply to pending matters; employer omission cannot prejudice employee’s rights. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner, appointed as Amin (1987) and later promoted to Revenue Inspector (2012), was denied 3rd MACP benefit (on completion of 30 years’ service) after retiring in 2019, on the ground he had not undergone RITI training. Evidence showed government did not offer him training, though it offered to many others. A 2020 Government circular clarified that lack of training not due to employee fault should not disentitle them to promotion, but authorities contended it was only prospective. The High Court quashed the denial and directed benefit based on retrospective operation of the circular. |
| Citations | CCE v. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd., (2006) 12 SCC 448; Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, (2006) 12 SCC 452; WPIL Ltd. v. CCE, (2005) 3 SCC 73; CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 454 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, relevant for all service law matters involving retrospective benefit of circulars |
| Follows | CCE v. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd. (2006) 12 SCC 448; WPIL Ltd. v. CCE (2005) 3 SCC 73; CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. (1995) 3 SCC 454 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Orissa High Court holds that beneficial government circulars clarifying entitlement to promotion or MACP benefits operate retrospectively, where denial is not due to employee’s fault.
- Government cannot deny training opportunities and then penalize employees for not fulfilling training requirements for MACP or promotional benefits.
- This judgment affirms that clarificatory circulars must be interpreted as retrospective per Supreme Court precedent.
- Lawyers may rely on this decision to challenge prospective application of circulars that are beneficial in nature.
- Cases where administrative delay or inaction denied employees training or examinations will fall within this protective principle.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the facts and confirmed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity by authorities to undergo the requisite RITI training for further promotion or benefits.
- Cited Supreme Court authorities (CCE v. Mysore Electricals, Suchitra Components, WPIL Ltd., Wood Craft Products) establishing that beneficial circulars and clarificatory notifications operate retrospectively.
- The Collector’s reasoning that the 2020 Government instruction was only prospective was rejected; since the circular was benevolent and clarificatory, it applied to all pending entitlements and could not be used to exclude beneficiaries who retired before 2020.
- The failure to send the petitioner for training was attributable to the employer, not the employee. Therefore, denial of MACP and fixation of appropriate pay was unsustainable.
- The Court also scrutinized the ORSP Rules, 2017 and found no express requirement barring MACP benefits due to non-completion of training where the fault lay with the authorities.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Achieved eligibility for 3rd MACP after 30 years of service; benefit denied solely on grounds of not undergoing RITI training.
- Was never offered or sponsored for RITI training despite multiple others being sent for such training during relevant period.
- Cited government circular and Supreme Court judgments to argue that clarificatory and beneficial circulars are retrospective.
- Sought quashing of the Collector’s order and extension of all consequential benefits.
Respondent/State
- Argued that since the petitioner had not undergone the requisite RITI training, he was not eligible for further promotion or MACP.
- Claimed the relevant 2020 circular was not retrospective and could not apply to those retired prior to its issuance.
- Maintained that authorities acted as per the applicable rules and orders.
Factual Background
The petitioner was appointed as Amin in 1987, promoted to Revenue Inspector in 2012, and retired from service in 2019. After completing 30 years of service, he applied for grant of the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) benefit. The benefit was denied by the Collector on the ground that he had not undergone the RITI training required for higher promotion. However, evidence revealed that the petitioner was never offered this training, although other Revenue Inspectors were sponsored during the relevant period. The government issued a clarificatory order in 2020 stating that where non-completion of training was not the employee’s fault, the benefit should not be denied. The Collector refused to apply this order retrospectively, leading to the present writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017 (ORSP Rules, 2017): Rule 11 (pay revision from date after 01.01.2016), Rule 12 (promotion-related pay fixation), Rule 13 (MACPS for stagnation in service from 01.01.2016); examined for eligibility and implementation.
- Government General Administration & Public Grievance Department Letter No.10699/Gen, dated 30.04.2020: Clarifies that absence of training due to no fault of the employee shall not disentitle promotional/MACP benefits.
- Court’s interpretation: Clarificatory and beneficial circulars have retrospective application as per Supreme Court law.
- No express exclusion of MACP benefits for employees denied training opportunity by the State otherwise eligible under ORSP Rules.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on retrospective operation of beneficial circulars is expressly affirmed and applied.
Citations
- CCE v. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd., (2006) 12 SCC 448
- Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, (2006) 12 SCC 452
- WPIL Ltd. v. CCE, (2005) 3 SCC 73
- CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 454