Mana Gobinda Subudhi Union of India and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 547 of 2019 Mana Gobinda Subudhi Union of India and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. D. Mohanta, Advocate Opposite parties Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate (opposite party nos.3 to 5) CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 22.03.2023 Order No. 07. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. D. Mohanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 3 to 5. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order under Annexure-4, by which the representation dated 09.06.2016 of the petitioner was rejected stating inter alia that the petitioner’s earlier grievances on the above issue have already been replied vide orders dated 17.10.2014, 09.12.2014 and 10.12.2014. 4. Mr. D. Mohanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the opposite parties and in lieu thereof compensation was paid, but employment to one of the family members of the petitioner has been denied on the plea that the land has not been acquired, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the document dated 18.12.1997 placed on record as Annexure-5 which indicates that the land of the petitioner has been acquired. 5. Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite Page 1 of 4 party nos. 3 to 5 contended that there is no scheme available for giving employment to the land oustee, as claimed by the petitioner. In absence of any scheme, the benefit as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted. It is further contended that in view of the order already passed in OJC No. 3928 of 1997, in the event the name of any family member of the petitioner is sponsored by the employment exchange, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. shall consider such case and employ one of the family members of the petitioner, if found suitable for such appointment. But none of the family members has registered their name in the employment exchange nor any of the family members of the petitioner applied for any post. Therefore, the question of grant of the benefit of appointment to any of the family members of the petitioner does not arise. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that the petitioner is a land oustee and for acquisition of his land, he has been paid the compensation amount and there is no dispute with regard to the same. But only question revolves around in this case is that whether one of the family member of the petitioner, is entitled to get appointment or not. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that in absence of any scheme or any guideline in regard to give employment to the land oustee, the benefit cannot be admissible to the petitioner. But fact remains, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing OJC No. 3928 of 1997, which was disposed vide order dated 30.11.2000 with the following direction:- “In the event the name of any of the family members of the petitioner is sponsored by the employment exchange, the Indian Oil Corporation shall consider such case and employ one of the family members of Page 2 of 4 the petitioner, if found suitable for such appointment.” 7. It is also made clear that in spite of the above order passed by this Court, neither the petitioner nor any of his family member registered his/her name in the employment exchange. Therefore, sponsor of the name of one of the family member of petitioner by the employment exchange did not arise. Apart from the same, even though an advertisement was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., neither the petitioner nor his family members applied for. Rather, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No. 3099 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2014 with the following observation and direction:- “No case has been made out for interference. The land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1994 and compensation was paid for the same. No provision has been brought to our notice which may entitle the petitioner to give employment to his son on preferential basis. If any vacancy is advertised, son of the petitioner is at liberty to offer his candidature for the said vacancy as observed by this Court earlier. In these circumstances, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued.” 8. In view of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3099 of 2007, whatever right had been accrued in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in OJC No. 3928 of 1997, has been merged with the said order. Thereby, the question of extending the benefit of appointment has been ceased by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench. 9. Mr. Mohanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid emphasis on the inquiry conducted on 24.10.2014 by the authority on the basis of the direction given by this Court in Page 3 of 4 OJC No. 3928 of 1997. But by that time the order had already been passed by the Division Bench on 19.03.2014 and the said order of the Division Bench, was not placed before the authority concerned. Thereby, for the suppression of material fact by the petitioner, the inquiry was conducted taking into consideration the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by this Court in OJC No. 3928 of 1997 and also the communication made by the Hon’ble Member of Parliament, Bhubaneswar pursuant to the letter issued by Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India in the year 2003. Therefore, the inquiry, which was conducted on 24.10.2014, having been done without taking into consideration the order dated 19.03.2014 of the Division Bench passed in W.P.(C) No. 3099 of 2007, cannot be given effect to. As such, neither the petitioner nor any his family members having registered their name in the employment exchange and having not applied for pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and more particularly there being no scheme for such appointment in lieu of acquisition of land, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Arun (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Page 4 of 4