Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Mandakini Guru on 19 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A Nos.1672, 1602, 1613, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623,
1624, 1625, 1627, 1628, 1629, 1637, 1638, 1639, 1640,
1641, 1644, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1651, 1655, 1657, 1658,
1659, 1660, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668,
1670, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1690,
1692, 1693, 1698, 1700, 1701, 1702 & 1703 of 2025
In the matter of appeals under Section-10 of the Letters
Patent of Patna High Court read with Article-4 the Orissa
High Court Rules, 1948.
----
1. State of Odisha, represented through
the Secretary to Government in Home
Department;
2. Director General & Inspector
General of Police, Odisha;
3. Dy. Inspector General of Police
(Personnel), Odisha; and
4. Dy. Commissioner of Police, UPD,
Cuttack (In all WAs) .... Appellants
-versus-
Mandakini Guru
(In W.A. No.1672/2025)
Kabita Nayak
(In W.A. No.1602/2025)
Ananta Narayan Naik
(In W.A. No.1613/2025)
Rabindra Mundari
(In W.A. No.1620/2025)
Bipin Bihari Dehury
Page 1 of 24
(In W.A. No.1621/2025)
Shaikh Ajharuddin
(In W.A. No.1622/2025)
Lipsa Das
(In W.A. No.1623/2025)
Bhaskar Mania
(In W.A. No.1624/2025)
Srikanta Sahoo
(In W.A. No.1625/2025)
Priyadarsinee Sahoo
(In W.A. No.1627/2025)
Satyajit Benia
(In W.A. No.1628/2025)
Raja Ranjan Nayak
(In W.A. No.1629/2025)
Bikash Ku. Pradhan
(In W.A. No.1637/2025)
Digbijayani Bagha
(In W.A. No.1638/2025)
Soumya Ranjan Pati
(In W.A. No.1639/2025)
Braja Kishore Panda
(In W.A. No.1640/2025)
Dipak Rout
(In W.A. No.1641/2025)
Kaisorika Routray
(In W.A. No.1644/2025)
Sakuntala Das
(In W.A. No.1647/2025)
Bibhuti Ku. Biswal
(In W.A. No.1648/2025)
Baidyanath Soren
(In W.A. No.1649/2025)
Taswar Ali Khan
(In W.A. No.1651/2025)
Page 2 of 24
Anil Ku. Sahoo
(In W.A. No.1655/2025)
Dillip Ku. Behera
(In W.A. No.1657/2025)
Golaka Bihari Pradhan
(In W.A. No.1658/2025)
Manas Ranjan Panda
(In W.A. No.1659/2025)
Biswajit Biswal
(In W.A. No.1660/2025)
Mohini Mallik
(In W.A. No.1662/2025)
Jiwan Lakra
(In W.A. No.1663/2025)
Binayak Mantri
(In W.A. No.1664/2025)
Karan Marandi
(In W.A. No.1665/2025)
Debadata Samantaray
(In W.A. No.1666/2025)
Jugeswar Behera
(In W.A. No.1667/2025)
Keshab Chandra Behera
(In W.A. No.1668/2025)
Shovan Ku. Swain
(In W.A. No.1670/2025)
Silulata Mallick
(In W.A. No.1683/2025)
Reenakanti Dundung
(In W.A. No.1684/2025)
Jyotsna Ranee Pradhan
(In W.A. No.1685/2025)
Nirupama Mahapatra
(In W.A. No.1686/2025)
Janmita Sasmal
Page 3 of 24
(In W.A. No.1687/2025)
Budharay Majhi
(In W.A. No.1688/2025)
Sanjukta Behera
(In W.A. No.1689/2025)
Pusparani Naik
(In W.A. No.1690/2025)
Itepriya Das
(In W.A. No.1692/2025)
Monalisa Pradhan
(In W.A. No.1693/2025)
Mahimai Hembram
(In W.A. No.1698/2025)
Jayashree Das
(In W.A. No.1700/2025)
Subash Chamdra Muduli
(In W.A. No.1701/2025)
Basudha Khuntia
(In W.A. No.1702/2025)
Manorama Swain
(In W.A. No.1703/2025)
.... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellants - Mr.Satya Brata Mohanty,
Addl. Government Advocate
(In all WAs)
For Respondents - Mr.Asok Ku. Mohanty,
Sr. Advocate
M/s.Srinivas Mohanty,
K.Patra, S.R. Mohanty,
E. Dash. A.Ray & A. Pati
Page 4 of 24
Advocates in all WAs except
W.A. Nos.1659 & 1667/2025
Mr.Anshuman Ray & A. Pati
Advocates in W.A. Nos.1659 &
1667/2025
---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 : Date of Judgment : 19.02.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
We prelude this judgment with what C. Rajgopalachari
(1878-1972) had cautioned Mahatma Gandhi:
“We ought all to know that Swaraj will not at once or think, even for
a long time to come, be better government or greater happiness for
the people. Elections and their corruptions, injustice and the power
and tyranny of wealth and inefficiency of administration will make a
hell of life so soon as freedom is given to us…”1All these intra-court Appeals by the State & its
functionaries seek to lay challenge to a set of two judgments
dated 20.09.2025 & 26.09.2025 entered by the learned Single
Judge whereby the subject Writ Petitions filed by the
Respondent-employees having been favoured, they have been
permitted to file their Property Declarations beyond the
timeline extended by the Government.
1 C. Rajagopalachar’s Jail Diary, published 1922, Pg. 63-64.
Page 5 of 24
2. Learned AGA appearing for the State & its officials
vehemently urged the following points for consideration:
2.1. Rule 21(4) of the Orissa Government Servants’ Conduct
Rules, 1959 as a matter of policy requires every civil servant to
declare assets & liabilities on or before 31st day of January of
every year or within such period as may be extended by the
Government under Rule 31; this Rule by its very nature is
mandatory; this aspect having not been properly appreciated
by the learned Single Judge, an error of gross magnitude has
crept in the impugned judgment warranting interference of
this Court, to set the same at right.
2.2. The principal Rules have been amended vide
Amendment Rules 2021 with effect from 24.06.2021 making
the filing of declaration of assets in terms of Rule 21(4) a
prerequisite for promotion; merely because meeting of the
DPC is deferred or adjourned, that would not elongate the
period prescribed under the subject Rule for filing of Property
Declaration; even this aspect of the matter, the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate.
2.3. The Coordinate Bench’s interim order dated 07.01.2026
cannot be construed as relaxing the period prescribed by the
extant Rules for filing of the Property Declaration, in any
Page 6 of 24
event, the submission of learned AGA as to the extension of
the period for filing such Declaration, was neither authorized
nor justified in the teeth of said Rules and therefore, that could
not be the basis for upholding the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-
employees made the following submissions in justification of
the impugned judgment:
3.1. The Rules requiring the filing of Property Declaration
even if held to be mandatory, the prescription of period for
doing it is only directory and therefore, belated filing of the
declaration cannot be faltered.
3.2. In any circumstance, the Respondents having filed their
Property Declaration within the extended period, are entitled
to stake their claim for promotion to the Post of Inspector of
Police; therefore, a direction needs to be issued to constitute
DPC at the earliest.
3.3. Because of field work, most of the Respondents skipped
the prescribed date for filing of Property Declaration and
therefore, their belated filing has to be accepted as sufficient
compliance keeping in view justice & equity and more
particularly, in the absence of any prejudice to the public
interest.
Page 7 of 24
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to
grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the
following reasons:
4.1. A THUMBNAIL DESCRIPTION OF RULE POSITION:
4.1.1. The 1959 Rules have been promulgated by the
State Government under the Proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. Rule-21 has been extensively amended
vide Notification No16105 PTI-GAD-SC-DMC-0128-2014/Gen.
dated 24.06.2021. Relevant part of this Rule is reproduced for
the ease of reference:
21. (1) No Government servant shall, except with the previous
knowledge of the prescribed authority, acquire or dispose of any
immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale gift or
otherwise either in his own name or in the name of any member of
his family:
(Two Provisos and the Explanation to this Sub-Rule not being much
relevant, are not reproduced).
Rule-21(2): The Government employee shall intimate any such
transaction immediately to the Head of Office besides mentioning
such transaction in the annual property return.
Rule-21 (3) : Where a Government servant enters into a transaction
in respect of movable property either in his own name or in the name
of any member of his family, he shall forthwith report such
transaction to the prescribed authority referred to in sub-rule (1), if
the value of such property exceeds two months’ basic pay of the
Government servant or as may be decided by the Government from
time to time by order published to this effect in the Odisha Gazette.
Page 8 of 24
Rule-21(4) : Every Government servant, from the level of Group-A
to Group-D is required to make a true and complete declaration of all
his assets, movable and immovable, and the value thereof as on the
1st January every year ONLINE in HRMS Portal on or before the
31 January of that year. The declaration shall contain detailed
particulars of the officer’s assets and must include and specify the
assets which are held by him or in the name of his Wife, Children
and other dependants. In case of female Govt. servants, in the
declaration there shall be specific mention as to whether the same has
been acquired out of her own source or from her husband’s source.
The return shall be placed in the public domain for access of public.
A copy of the return shall also be accessible to the Lokayukta for his
information. In the event of failure to file property return in time,
the concerned Govt. servants shall be liable to disciplinary action.
An employee making a declaration found to be materially
incomplete, misleading or false shall be liable for disciplinary action
in a major penalty proceeding under the provisions of respective
disciplinary Rules. Besides up to date filing of property return will
be a prerequisite for promotion….”
4.1.2. There are five Notes to the Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 21 of
1959 Rules as amended from time to time. Note-(1) provides
for Judicial Officers and the officers on deputation or
temporary transfer to another cadre filing Property
Declaration ONLINE on or before 31st January of the year.
Note-(2) provides for filing of Property Declaration by the
fresh recruits within three months of their appointment.
Added, they have to file a regular Property Declaration on or
before 31st January of the year. Note-(3) provides for making a
suitable provision by the CMGI in HRMS to enable the above
requirement of submission of Property Declaration ONLINE
by the Government servants and making them accessible to
Page 9 of 24
Public and Lokayukta. Note-(4) says that the PAR custodians
of the Department (for Group-B, C & D) shall download and
authenticate the Property Declaration in case the same are
required for Disciplinary Proceeding or in Criminal Case.
Note-(5) reads that for Group-D employees, the Officer-in-
Charge of the establishment shall upload the Property
Declaration on obtaining the same from those who cannot do
it ONLINE in HRMS.
4.1.3. The Property Declarations have to be filed in the
prescribed form at APPENDIX to the 1959 Rules, which has
two parts: Part-A prescribes particulars of immovable
property in a generic way whereas Part-B relates to particulars
of movable property. The E-Form is a bit variable, is true. Rule
31 empowers the Government to relax all or any of the
provisions of these Rules, as may be deemed fit. Rule 33
provides for delegation of power by the Government to any
other officer or authority as may be specified by it, save with
Rule 21. Lastly, Rule 32 makes the Government the final
authority to interpret the provisions of all the Rules. It need
not be said that it is the Government which is in these
Appeals, with its view of these Rules.
4.2. CORRUPTION IN PUBLIC LIFE & ENORMITY OF ITS IMPACT
ON THE POLITY:
Page 10 of 24
4.2.1. The Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, has
expressed its deep anguish against the growing trends of
corruption and bribery in all branches of “Powers That Be”. In
Vineet Narain v. Union of India2, it observed as under:
“…The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a
high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on
foreign investment and funding from the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank who have warned that future aid to under-
developed countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken
to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from
reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to
investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. The need
to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public
interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India
but is not unknown in other countries: R v Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1995) 1 WLR 386.
…It cannot be doubted that there is a serious human rights aspect
involved in such a proceeding because the prevailing corruption in
public life, if permitted to continue unchecked, has ultimately the
deleterious effect of eroding the Indian polity…”
4.2.2. In Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar3, it has
been said as under:
“Corruption, a ‘noun’ when assumes all the characteristics of a
‘verb’, becomes self-infective and also develops resistance to
antibiotics. In such a situation the disguised protagonist never puts a
Hamletian question – “to be or not to be” – but marches ahead with
perverted proclivity – sans concern, sans care for collective interest,
and irrefragably without conscience. In a way, corruption becomes a
national economic terror. This social calamity warrants a different
control…”
2. AIR 1998 SC 889.
3. (2016) 3 SCC 183.
Page 11 of 24
In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra4,
the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has made the
following observations:
“20. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that
corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers
disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved
ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions,
paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of
civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that
immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people
believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have
suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility
respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional
morality…”
4.2.3. Mr. Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General of
U.N, in his Foreword to United Nations Convention against
Corruption, 2004, wrote:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive
effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law,
leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the
quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other
threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries big and small, rich
and poor but it is in the developing world that its effects are most
destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by
diverting funds intended for development, undermining a
Government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality
and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment.
Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a
major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.
I am therefore very happy that we now have a new instrument to
address this scourge at the global level. The adoption of the United
4. AIR 2013 SC 1682.
Page 12 of 24
Nations Convention against Corruption will send a clear message
that the international community is determined to prevent and
control corruption. It will warn the corrupt that betrayal of the
public trust will no longer be tolerated. And it will reaffirm the
importance of core values such as honesty, respect for the rule of law,
accountability and transparency in promoting development and
making the world a better place for all.”
4.2.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Centre for Public
Interest Litigation v. Union of India5, made the following post
script observations:
“23.1 Corruption is a result of greed and envy which give rise to an
unhealthy competition to be acquisitive of material assets beyond
known sources of income. A person may compete with another so as
to portray materialistic superiority. This may result in acquiring
wealth illegally. One’s attitude of greed and envy ought to be curbed
and erased from one’s mind, otherwise corruption and bribery
resulting in acquisition of wealth beyond the known sources of
income cannot be reduced nor removed from our governance. One of
the ways in which such tendencies could be curbed is to develop and
enhance a spiritual bent of mind resulting in detachment from
materialistic possessions and thereby, inter alia, focusing on service
to the Nation.
23.2 The youth and the children of this country ought to shun
anything acquired beyond the known sources of income by their
parents and guardians rather than being beneficiaries of the same.
This would be of a seminal service rendered by them not only
towards good governance but also to the Nation.”
4.2.5. It is in the light of ever growing cancer of
corruption & bribery, several preventive measures have been
taken by the State entities. One of them is to bring probity &
transparency in the realm of public service. Rules of 1959 kind
5. 2026 INSC 55.
Page 13 of 24
are promulgated to achieve that laudable object. Such Rules
therefore have to be enforced in their letter & spirit. Otherwise,
their very object will be defeated. When the Rules provide for
taking disciplinary action for non-filing of Property Declaration
and further denial of promotion on that count alone, the
impugned judgment bestowing benefit on the unscrupulous
public servants runs repugnant to the intent & policy content of
the subject Rules. It is nothing short of placing premium on
illegality, to say the least.
4.3. AS TO EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR FILING OF PROPERTY
DECLARATION:
4.3.1. As already mentioned, Rule 31 of 1959 Rules
provides for relaxation of any of the Rules by the Government
and accordingly, post amendment representations were made
by the Orissa Administrative Service Association (OASA)
requesting for extension of the deadline for submitting the
Annual Property Declaration for the year 2024. At the
Secretariat level, a note was put up before the Hon’ble Chief
Minister as under:
“Keeping in view of above, the Odisha Administrative Service
Association (OASA) has requested regarding extension of the
dateline to submit the Annual Property Statement for 2024. As
ascertained from the online database of the HRMS portal as on
31.01.2025, 321068 numbers of Government employees have
submitted their Annual Property Statement out of 741339Page 14 of 24
employees which is less than 50% and very poor in filing of Annual
Property Statement for the year, 2024.
As such, the date line for submission of Property Returns by the
State Government Officers for the year 2024 may be allowed another
two months, in order give another chance to the defaulting
employees to submit their property statements through HRMS Web
Portal.”
4.3.2. The Chief Minister, vide Noting 417, approved the
proposal on 07.02.2025 extending the timeline up to 28.02.2025.
Accordingly, the information was webhosted for the benefit of
all employees and many took benefit of that. Subsequently,
vide Noting 461, the same came to be further extended to
31.05.2025 with the approval of the Chief Minister dated
17.04.2025. The benefit of this too was availed by a chunk of
employees. These two extensions are confined to the year 2024,
and not for the subsequent year, i.e., 2025, as rightly submitted
by learned AGA. It is not disputed by the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent-employees that no Property
Declarations were filed by them during the first & second
extensions. Their plea that all they were in the field work and
therefore, could not file the Declarations in the extended
timeline, is nothing but a ruse.
4.4. AS TO SUBJECT RULES BEING DIRECTORY, AND NOT
MANDATORY:
Page 15 of 24
4.4.1. In Justice G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory of Interpretation,
13th Edition at Page 394-395, it is observed as under:
“The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory
depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the
language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention
of the Legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained not
only from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering
its nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from
construing it the one way or the other. For ascertaining the real
intention of the Legislature, …. the court may consider inter alia, the
nature and design of the statute, and the consequences which would
follow from construing it the one way or the other; the impact of
other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the
provisions in question is avoided; the circumstances, namely, that
the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the
provisions; the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or
is not visited by some penalty; the serious or the trivial
consequences, that flow therefrom; and above all, whether the object
of the legislation will be defeated or furthered. If object of the
enactment will be defeated by holding the same directory, it will be
construed as mandatory, whereas if by holding it mandatory serious
general inconvenience will be created to innocent persons without
very much furthering the object of enactment, the same will be
construed as directory. But all this does not mean that the language
used is to be ignored but only that the prima facie inference of the
intention of the Legislature arising from the words used may be
displaced by considering the nature of the enactment, its design and
the consequences flowing from alternative constructions….”
4.4.2. The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing
for the employees, that the requirement of filing Property
Declaration in terms of the subject Rules is only directory, is
difficult to agree with. Firstly, the text of the concerned Rules,
which have been reproduced above, is couched in mandatory
language. The provisions of the Rules employ the word ‘shall’
Page 16 of 24
at several places. Secondly, the consequences of non-filing of
the Declarations are severely stated. It leads not only to denial
of promotional opportunity but institution of disciplinary
action. Thirdly, copies of Declaration go to Lokayukta and to
the Public Domain.
4.4.3. Added to the above, the Rules requiring
compulsory filing of Property Declaration are consistent with
International Conventions of the United Nations. The Apex
Court in Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur
Pandey6, has said that in the absence of contrary legislation,
municipal Courts in India would respect the rules of International
Law, which would include the International Conventions &
Treaties. In interpreting Rules of the kind, Courts would so
construe them, if possible, as will not violate any established
principle of International Law. The Property Declaration of a
public servant shall avail in public domain so that such public
servants are under a continuous glare of public eye. Any
member of the public can scrutinize the same and bring to the
notice of concerned higher-ups, if declaration is defective or
deceptive. It is almost on par with the declaration of assets &
liabilities by the People’s Representatives (MPs & MLAs) inter
alia under Section 33-B of the Representation of the People Act,
6
AIR 1984 SC 667 (Para 6).
Page 17 of 24
1951 read with the Election Code of Conduct promulgated by
the Election Commission of India.
4.5. AS TO FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIMELINE BEYOND
31.05.2025:
4.5.1. The vehement submission of learned advocates for
the Respondent-employees that the period for filing the
Property Declaration has been extended indefinitely pursuant
to Office Memorandum dated 27.11.2025, is bit difficult to
countenance. This submission they made, by placing reliance
on Clarification-3 in the said Memorandum. Learned AGA
placed reliance on Clarifications-1 & 2 of the said instrument,
on the other hand. For ease of reference, all the three
Clarifications are reproduced below:
“1. As per the Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules,
1992, selection for promotion shall be made based on merit and
suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority. Accordingly,
any Government employee who has not submitted the up-to-date
property return at the time of DPC shall be treated as ‘not suitable’
for promotion in that DPC.
2. The DPC shall proceed to fill up the available vacancies based on
eligibility and suitability of the employees who have complied with
the property return requirements. No vacancy shall be kept unfilled
or reserved for consideration of promotion of employees who failed to
submit up-to-date property returns.
3. If any defaulting employee submits the required property returns
after the DPC within a grace period allowed by the Government, and
is found otherwise suitable for promotion, his/her promotion may be
considered in the subsequent DPC. He/she may be granted notionalPage 18 of 24
promotion from the date on which his/her junior was promoted and
his Seniority shall be maintained.”
A careful perusal of above paragraphs does not lend credence
to the contention advanced on behalf of the employees. There is
nothing to show that the Government has further extended the
timeline beyond 31.05.2025.
4.5.2. Added to the above, the aforesaid 2025 Office
Memorandum has been issued by the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government whereas the two extensions granted
to the employees for filing Property Declaration were the result
of decision making by a bunch of Secretaries with the approval
of Chief Minister. We have not been shown under what
provisions of the extant Rules including those relating to
Allocation of Business, the Additional Chief Secretary could
unilaterally take any decision to extend the period for belated
filing of Declaration. We repeat that he has not granted such
extension of prescribed timeline beyond 31.05.2025. The
contention runs counter to the enormity of significance that the
extant Rule as amended in 2021 attaches to the statutory duty
of filing Property Declaration. Lastly, instruments of the kind
cannot be construed in a sectarian way; all its parts have to be
construed consistent with each other. If that is done, there is no
Page 19 of 24
scope for the kind of interpretation which learned advocates
representing the Respondents seek to place on this instrument.
4.5.3. The vehement submission of learned Sr. Advocate
Mr. Asok Mohanty representing the Respondent-employees
that the order dated 07.01.2026 made in W.A. No.1672 of 2025
would come to the aid of his clients, again does not gain our
acceptance. Paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 of the said order read as
follows:-
“1. Our attention is drawn at the Bar to circular dated 27th
November, 2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government in General Administration and Public Grievance
Department, Government of Odisha, wherein those who would
submit the property statement details within the grace period, their
cases will be considered for promotion with retrospective effect and
they will be given notional promotion.
2. It is submitted by Mr.Saswat Das, learned Addl. Government
Advocate that by virtue of subsequent circular (s) and/or letter (s),
the time to submit the property details for the year 2024 has been
extended till 31st January, 2026. The submission was made by the
learned Addl. Government Advocate that the employees who could
not upload their property details online may be permitted to upload
those details as provided in the amendment to the Odisha
Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1959 carried out in the year,
2021.
3. Since the period has been extended till 31st January, 2026, we
direct the writ petitioners-respondents who have not uploaded their
property details online shall upload the property details within the
time as indicated hereinabove. After uploading all the details, the
grievance so raised shall be considered by this Court on the basis of
circulars/letters issued by the Department from time to time.”
Page 20 of 24
The above observations are made on the offhand submission of
learned AGA, who had appeared for the State at that stage of
the proceedings. Learned AGA Mr.Mohanty, on being asked,
submitted that the said AGA had no instructions, much less
justification for making the said submission. He is also right in
telling us that the said order is made during the pendency of
Appeals and therefore, cannot be treated as creating any
concrete right in favour of the employees, when the main
matter was yet to be heard.
4.6. AS TO STATE BEING A MODEL EMPLOYER HAS TO BE SOFT &
SYMPATHETIC TO THE PUBLIC SERVANTS:
4.6.1. The last contention on behalf of the Respondent-
employees that ours being a Welfare State and judiciary being
one of its institutions, has power to extend the deadline for
filing the Property Declaration and that accordingly learned
Single Judge has made the impugned judgment, does not merit
acceptance. Reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, the
power to relax is given to the Government under Rule-31 of
1959 Rules. In exercise of that power, twice the extension was
granted by the Government, as already discussed. There is
absolutely no justification whatsoever for the Writ Court to
assume the powers of Executive and thereby grant further
extension. Even otherwise, whether to grant extension is
Page 21 of 24
essentially a matter of State Policy, which involves a host of
factors that are not judicially assessable, Judges lacking
requisite administrative expertise.
4.6.2. The Apex Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v.
The State of Punjab7, observed that our Constitution recognizes
the doctrine of separation of powers, though not as strictly as the
U.S. Constitution does it. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain8, this doctrine has been held to be a basic feature of the
Constitution. One organ of the State cannot arrogate to itself the
powers of other. Each should show deference to the decision of
other. Each has to operate within the sphere constitutionally
allocated to it. Sages of law shun the trespass of one into the
realm of another. An argument to the contrary would make
Montesquieu (1689-1755), the father of this doctrine, to shiver
in his grave.
4.7. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSINS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE
EMPLOYEES:
(a) In matters like this, the arguments of parity with those
who have been granted promotion disregarding delay in filing
Property Declaration beyond 31.05.2025, does not come to the
aid of Respondents. Equality & parity cannot be chanted as
7. AIR 1955 SC 549.
8. AIR 1975 SC 2299.
Page 22 of 24
mantra. Where someone is bestowed with some benefit
contrary to law, others cannot claim the same on the principle
of parity. In other words, those who claim parity in treatment,
have to show that what has been given to others, is not in
violation of law.
(b) The last contention of learned advocates appearing for
the Respondent-employees that, the act of Government in
extending the period for filing the Property Declaration twice,
created a legitimate expectation to have one more extension, is
ridiculous, to say the least. Sporadically things done in
statutory discretion are not a breeding ground for any
expectation, much less legitimate. Added, elongation of the
timeline was not done with fair degree of regularity, for raising
any expectation. It was a kind of one time measure because
more than 50% of public servants had missed the deadline.
(c) In matters relating to periodic Property Declaration, the
Government should be very circumspect in relaxing the
requirement. Merely because there is some pressure from some
quarters, such relaxation cannot be granted mindlessly. It
should be only by way of extreme exception to the generality of
the Rules. Multiple exceptions would swallow the Rule itself.
Having turned the pages of file, we cannot refrain ourselves
Page 23 of 24
from saying that such a circumspection is lacking. Be that as it
may, the cause of public administration will be more served by
sustaining the stand of Government than by disallowing it.
In the above circumstances, these Appeals
succeed. The impugned judgments dated 20.09.2025 &
26.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge are set aside.
Respondents’ Writ Petitions mentioned below are
dismissed, costs having been made easy:
WP(C) Nos. 27510, 27483, 26489, 26490, 26493, 26496,
27489, 26551, 27487, 27485, 27488, 27490, 27492, 27493,
27494, 27497, 27495, 27496, 27506, 27509, 27508, 27517,
27504, 27511, 27507, 27512, 27498, 27513, 27516, 27500,
27502, 27505, 27499, 27515, 27514, 27579, 27585, 27521,
27518, 27520, 27543, 27519, 27581, 27864, 27627, 27866,
27628, 27707, 27626 & 27589 of 2025.
This Court places on record its deep appreciation for the
able research & assistance rendered by its Law Clerk-cum-
Research Assistant Mr. Mohammed Nihad Sharief.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge(Chittaranjan Dash)
Signature Not Verified Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK
Designation: ADDL. DY.thREGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
The 19 Day of February, 2026/Basu
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 19-Feb-2026 19:55:09
Page 24 of 24
