Srimanta kumar Mahji v. Coir Board & anr. & OJC No
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2549 of 2024 Mahendra Prasad Mohapatra -versus- COIR Board, Ministry of Agro & Rural Industries, Govt. of India, Kochi & another …. Mr. B.S. Tripathy 1, Advocate Petitioner …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. Along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, C.G.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 07.02.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Union of India and Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned Central Government Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to; i) direct the opp.parties to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner with pre-revised regular Group D Scale of pay of Rs.3050- 4590 with consequential revised regular Group D Scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200 +1900(GP) w.e.f. 30.01.1996, i.e., his date of appointment with all consequential service and monetary benefits in the same manner as extended to his juniors and other similarly situated employees namely P.Ramlingam, Srimanta Kumar and Majhi Kodambmala Dasaradha Rao vide Annexure-4, 5 and 10 read with judgment dt.30.06.2015 passed in OJC No.7816/1994: Srimanta kumar Mahji v. Coir Board & anr. & OJC No.5055/1999: Sukanta Chandra Das v. Coir Board & Anr) // 2 // and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case as well as law down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1; State of Karnataka v. M. L. Keshari and others, (2010) 9 SCC 247; Amarakanta Rai v. State of Bihar, (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 679; and Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2018 SC 233 and; ii) the bonafide interest of justice and fair play.” pass such other order (s) as deemed fit and proper in 4. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Contingent Safaiwala in the office of the Opposite Party No.2 on 30.01.1996. After completion of three years of service w.e.f. 17.05.2000 the Petitioner was conferred with temporary status as Group-D employee w.e.f. 19.10.1999. Thereafter, while working as such, the Petitioner’s service was terminated vide order dated 04.03.2005 under Annexure-2 to the writ application. Challenging the aforesaid termination order the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2465 of 2005. The said writ application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2016 thereby the impugned termination order was set aside and a direction was given to the Opposite Parties to reinstate the Petitioner with back wages of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with continuity in his service pursuant to the order under Annexure-3 to the writ application. After disposal of the aforesaid writ application, the Opposite Parties challenge the same by filing a writ appeal bearing W.A. No.389 of 2016. The aforesaid writ appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench vide order dated 16.08.2016. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that many similarly situated employees have been regularized in service. He specifically referred to the case of one Susil Kumar Sahoo, who has been regularizing in the post of Helper (Coir Processing) Group-D service pursuant to order under Annexure-4. Similarly, based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras // 3 // High Court the service of one Contingent staff in a Group-D post including one Shri P. Ramalingam was regularized with a retrospective effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that following the Hon’ble Madras High Court judgment, this Court in O.J.C. No.7816 of 1994, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.06.2015 in Srimanta Kumar Mahji vs. Coir Board & another and O.J.C. No.5055 of 1999 in Sukanta Chandra Das vs. Coir Board & anr. disposed of the writ application by directing the Coir Board to consider the case of both Petitioners for regularization of their service in the manner as has been done in the case of similarly situated employees. He further contended that after disposal of the aforesaid writ applications the Opposite parties are considered the case of such employees and their services have been regularized in the meantime. Finally, on 27.08.2018 based on order under Annexure-6 to the writ application i.e. an order passed in RVWPET No.148 of 2016, which was filed challenging the order passed in the W.P.(C) No.2465 of 2005. The Petitioner submitted a representation before the opposite parties, however, the same has not been considered as of now and no final order has been passed by the Opposite parties. Although a contempt application bearing CONTC No.1880 of 2018 was filed before this Court and the same has been disposed of by directing the Opposite parties to comply with the judgment under Annexure-3 to the writ application, however, no steps have been taken to implement the order passed in the above noted writ application by the Opposite parties. 6. While the matter stood thus, on 18.06.2019, the Petitioner has been reinstated in service by order of the Opposite Party No.1 with an undertaking from the Petitioner that he shall not claim any back wages. The order under Annexure-8 dated 18.06.2019 has been // 4 // passed after obtaining an undertaking by coercing the Petitioner to give such undertaking. Finally, learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that order dated 29.04.2022 one Kadambala Dasaradha Rao was regularized in service w.e.f. his initial date of engagement i.e. 09.07.1991 as per the judgment dated 28.02.2019 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5011 of 2019 under Annexure-10 to the writ application. He further contended that although the Petitioner has been discharging his duties on a regular basis as a cook, however, his service has not been regularized as of now. 7. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid order passed by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Madras High Court and further considering the materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-11 to the writ application pending before the Opposite Party No.1 in accordance with law and by taking into consideration the order passed by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Madras High Court within a period of two months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to consider the fact that similarly situated persons have been regularized in service, who stand in a similar footing with the Petitioner. The representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by the Opposite Party No.1 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of taking such a decision. It is further directed that till a decision is taken by the Opposite Party No.1 as has been directed hereinabove, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner for a period of three months or till disposal of the representation of the Petitioner. // 5 // 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Feb-2024 15:46:32