The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7053 of 2023 Motilal Matari …. Petitioner Mr.Rajjeet Roy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr.Saswat Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 16.03.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Application has been filed with the following prayer: stated “In view of particularly Opp.Party No.4. facts and the above circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp.Parties i.e., Block more Development Officer, Gaisilat to show cause as to why necessary direction shall not be issued to regularize the services of the Petitioner in the post of Peon lying vacant in the Office of the Panchayat Samiti, Gaisilat with all consequential service benefits, And if the Opp.Parties fail to show cause or show // 2 // insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court may make the said rule absolute by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Opp.Parties more particularly the Opp.Party No.4 i.e. Block Development Officer, Gaisilat to regularize the services of the Petitioner in the pot of Peon lying vacant in the Office of the Panchayat Samiti, Gaisilat and grant consequential service benefits. And further be pleased issue any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, or direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice,” to rule/rules 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was engaged as Peon by the Gaisilat Panchayat Samiti on 13.08.2010 on temporary basis by the Block Development Officer, Gaisilat, Opposite Party No.4. Thereafter, the Petitioner joined in service and was discharging his duty sincerely. While the matter stood thus on 17.10.2017 the Block Development Officer, Opposite Party No.4 submitted a copy of the Resolution of the Panchayat Samiti meeting for approval of engagement of the Petitioner to the District Panchayat Officer, Bargarh, Opposite Party no.3. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation on 10.06.2019 to the Collector & District Magistrate, Bargarh, Opposite Party No.2 to consider his case for regular appointment against a regular sanctioned post, which was lying vacant. Thereafter the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4987 of 2020. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 12.02.2020 with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. After disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, Opposite // 3 // Party No.2 disposed of the representation of the Petitioner by order dated 06.03.2020 with the observation that the Block Development Officer, Opposite Party No.4 is the appointing authority for Group-D (Class-IV) post. So, he is to take decision on the matter. Further, it was observed that prior approval of the parent department is to be obtained before considering the appointment. 5. Thereafter the Petitioner again approached this Court by
Decision
filing W.P.(C) No.31927 of 2020, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 25.11.2020 directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner and regularize his service keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, within a period of four months. Since the order passed by this Court on 25.11.2020 was not carried out, the Petitioner was compelled to file CONTC No.3870 of 2021 which was disposed of on 15.07.2021 by granting further time to the Opposite Parties to comply with the order passed by this Court. Finally, vide order dated 04.02.2023 the Block Development Officer, Opposite Party No.4 instead of regularizing the services of the Petitioner vide his letter sought for permission from the Government in the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, Government of Odisha to appoint the Petitioner against a regular sanctioned post of Peon in the Panchayat Samiti Office, Gaisilat. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court // 4 // the Collector and District Magistrate instructed the Block Development Officer to take necessary action with a further observation that before obtaining the approval of the Government the approval of the administrative department be also obtained by the Block Development Officer. Further, referring to the letter dated 04.02.2023 under Annexure-10, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Block Development Officer has sought for instruction from the administrative department which is pending before the Government. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is premature and the same may be dismissed at this stage. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon a careful conspectus of the Writ Petition and the documents annexed thereto, this Court utterly surprised to observe that for appointment to a regular sanctioned post of Peon the Petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court for the 3rd time. Undisputedly, the post of Peon against which the Petitioner is seeking appointment is a sanctioned vacant post duly approved by the administrative department earlier. Further, the documents annexed to the Writ Petition, reveal that the Petitioner was duly selected for the said post in the year 2010. However, he was engaged on temporary basis. When the question of regularization of the Petitioner for the said post came up in the year 2017, the Petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post for regularization of his service. The letter of the Collector and District Magistrate pursuant to the order passed by this Court reveals the attitude of the Collector & // 5 // District Magistrate, Opposite Party No.2 in trying to shift the responsibility. Further, it is observed that once the post has been duly approved by the administrative department, no further sanction from the concerned administrative department is required to fill up the said post after the same fell vacant. Therefore, the letter of the Collector & District Magistrate directing the Block Development Officer to appoint the Petitioner with the approval of the administrative department was uncalled for. This Court at this juncture would not name the Block Development Officer as he has acted to the order passed by the Collector & District Magistrate. On a careful analysis of the facts of the present case, this case is of the considered view that the Collector & District Magistrate, Opposite Party No.2 should have been more careful while passing the order pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. 8. Be that as it may, since the Block Development Officer, Opposite Party No.4 has written to the Government vide letter under Annexure-10 and the same is pending before the concerned administrative department, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the letter dated 04.02.2023 under Annexure-10 within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The decision be communicated to the Block Development Officer forthwith. The Opposite Party No.4 is further directed to immediately appoint the Petitioner against the vacant post of // 6 // Peon for which he has already recommended the name of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today after obtaining necessary approval from the concerned administrative department. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge