The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2024 16:02:40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 3708 OF 2023 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** Kali Charan Rout …… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and others .…… Opp. Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Rath, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opp. Party No.1) Mr. Sashi Bhusan Jena, Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3) CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Decision
------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on 06.05.2024 ---------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT K.R. Mohapatra, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order No.2481 dated 24th December, 2021 (Annexure- 15) passed by the Managing Director, Odisha, Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby the representation W.P.(C) No. 3708 OF 2023 Page 1 of 6 // 2 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2024 16:02:40 of the Petitioner dated 12th November, 2021 to retain Quarter No.2RF 5/1 in RHS Colony, Unit-III, Kharavelnagar, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Quarter’), has been rejected. 3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was an employee of Odisha Co-Operative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Corporation’). Since the Petitioner did not have any accommodation of his own, he, after his superannuation, made an application on 10th June, 2009 for retaining the Quarter, in which he was residing during continuance in service. The said application was made in terms of a resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the Corporation held on 9th January, 2018 (Annexure-5), wherein a decision was taken that an employee after his retirement can retain the quarter for four months. If the retired employee does not have any accommodation of his own and makes an application, the Corporation may consider allotment of a quarter, not allotted to any employee of the Corporation. The said application of the Petitioner was not considered favourably. On the other hand, an eviction order was passed against the Petitioner. He unsuccessfully challenged the order of eviction in appeal. Hence, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 15659 of 2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 27th September, 2021 (Annexure-14) with the following direction: “6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the petitioner is in occupation of the quarter, unless he vacates the quarter, his application for allotment for quarter does not arise. In course of hearing, W.P.(C) No. 3708 OF 2023 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2024 16:02:40 // 3 // for the petitioner learned counsel Mr. P.K. Rath, undertakes that the petitioner shall vacate the quarter by 31st October, 2021 and handover the possession of the same to the opposite parties. Thereafter, the application filed by the petitioner dated 10.06.2019 for allotment of quarter shall be considered as per the scheme applicable to the petitioner taking into consideration that similarly situated persons have been allotted the quarter as has been stated in rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner in Court today. The entire exercise shall be completed by opposite parties within a period of three months after vacation of the quarter by the petitioner by 31st October, 2021. 7. petition stands disposed of.” With the above observation and direction, the writ 4. Accordingly, the Quarter submitted a detailed representation dated 12th November, 2021 the Petitioner vacating along with the order of this Court before the Opposite Party No.3 for allotment of a quarter. The Corporation without taking any decision on the representation of the Petitioner dated 10th June, 2019 under Annexure-4, as directed by this Court, rejected the subsequent representation dated 12th November, 2021 stating that the Petitioner is a retired employee and arrear rent of Rs.1,87,688/- is outstanding on the Petitioner. In the representation, the Petitioner has stated that similarly situated retired employees have been allowed to continue in the quarter, they were allotted. But in the case of the Petitioner there was a departure and he was denied of his right to be allotted with a quarter in terms of the resolution of the Corporation under Annexure-5. As such, finding no other alternative, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition. W.P.(C) No. 3708 OF 2023 Page 3 of 6 // 4 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2024 16:02:40 5. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that although the impugned order under Annexure-15 does not reflect that representation dated 10th June, 2019 under Annexure- 4 was considered, but the request of the Petitioner made therein has been taken into consideration, which was stated in detail in his subsequent representation dated 12th November, 2021 filed pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15659 of 2020. The case of the Petitioner was considered in accordance with the resolution passed by the Corporation to allot quarters to the retired employees. Arrear rent of more than Rs.1 lakh was then outstanding against the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner was allowed to retain the Quarter for four months after retirement, but he did not vacate the same, for which eviction proceeding was initiated and order of eviction was passed. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed appeal, which was also rejected. Only pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15659 of 2020, the Petitioner vacated the Quarter. The outstanding arrear rent was subsequently recovered from his retiral dues. As per the resolution, applicants are kept in a queue and subject to the availability of the quarters, allotment orders are being issued. Thus, the representation of the Petitioner was rightly rejected by the Opposite Party No.3. 6. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Petitioner in his representation dated 10th June, 2019 under Annexure-4 had requested for allotment of the Quarter in which he was residing W.P.(C) No. 3708 OF 2023 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2024 16:02:40 stating that similarly situated employees were allowed to continue in the staff quarters, they were allotted during continuance in service. But, after disposal of W.P.(C) No. 15659 of 2020, the Petitioner along with certified copy of the order, filed a detailed representation on 12th November, 2021. 7. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that inadvertently, the date of the representation dated 10th June, 2019 was not reflected in the impugned order under Annxure-15. But the subject matter of representation was taken into consideration in Annexure-15. 8. On perusal of the record, this Court finds the contention of Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Corporation to be correct. Thus, no exception can be taken for non-consideration of the representation dated 10th June, 2019 under Annexure-4. However, it is apparent from the impugned order under Annexure-15 that the ground taken by the Petitioner to the effect that similarly situated retired employees were being allowed to continue in the quarters they were staying, was not taken into consideration by the Opposite Party No.3-Corporation while passing the impugned order under Annexure-15. Since similarly situated retired employees were allegedly allowed to continue in the quarters they were staying, the case of the Petitioner should have been considered in that light also. In the meantime, the arrear rent has already been recovered from the retiral dues of the Petitioner. Thus, there is no legal impediment for the Corporation to consider the representation of the Petitioner for W.P.(C) No. 3708 OF 2023 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2024 16:02:40 allotment of a quarter in terms of resolution dated 9th January, 2018 under Annexure-5 keeping in mind the contentions of the Petitioner that similarly situated persons have been allowed to continue in the quarter, they were staying, details of which have been stated at Paragraph-12 of this writ petition. This aspect was not considered by the Opposite Party No.3-Corporation while passing the impugned order under Annexure-15. Hence, the same is not sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-15 is set aside. The Opposite Party No.3-Corporation is directed to consider the representation dated 12th November, 2021 filed by the Petitioner afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and the decision thereof shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 6th May, 2024/Madhusmita W.P.(C) No. 3708 OF 2023 Page 6 of 6