High Court of Orissa
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:02:45 HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK RVWPET No.107 of 2022 ******* Diptimayee Samal … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties Advocate for the Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Satya Narayan Mohapatra, Advocate For Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRUSHNA RAM MOHAPATRA JUSTICE RADHA KRISHNA PATTANAIK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision
Heard and disposed of on 13.12.2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT By the Bench:- 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Perused the kind minutes of Hon’ble the Chief Justice at Flag-‘X’ assigning this matter to be heard by a Bench, where Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Pattanaik is a member. Accordingly, the RVWPET is listed before this Bench for adjudication. 3. SR has pointed out a delay of 811 days in filing the Review Petition. Order sought to be reviewed in this petition was passed on 30th March, 2022. Hence, the Review Petition ought to have been filed by 29th April, 2022. As it appears, the Review Petition was filed on 29th April, 2022, which is in time. Hence, delay of 811 days in filing the Review Petition pointed out by SR is RVWPET No.107 of 2022 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:02:45 ignored as there is no delay in filing the review petition. Other defects pointed out by SR are also ignored. 4. The Petitioners seek review of the order dated 30th March, 2022 passed in OJC No.16071 of 2001. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner’s husband, namely, Pravat Kumar Samal while continuing as Statistical Assistant in his parent department, i.e., Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), was deputed to Odisha Construction Corporation Limited (OCC). While continuing as such, Petitioner’s husband was again deputed to District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Sonepur. Assailing the said order, husband of the Petitioner moved Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar in OA No.2093 of 1996, which was disposed of on 18th January, 1999 with the following direction: “7. …………………O.P.No.2 passed the order under Annexure-10 dated 7.8.1996 confirming the earlier order of deputation of the applicant to DRDA, Sonepur. Therefore, it was expected of the applicant to submit his joining report before the DADA, Sonepur in absence of stay order granted in the present original application. When the applicant has not joined at Sonepur despite his relief from CCC Ltd., the intervening period from the date of relief till the date of his joining at Sonepur cannot be treated as spent on duty or extension of joining time and for this period the applicant is to apply for leave to regularize his service. 8. For the reasons indicated above the original application is allowed with a direction to the State Respondents to bring back the applicant to the parent department within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I would direct the applicant to apply for leave for regularization of his service for the intervening period between the date of relief from the OCC Ltd. and the date of joining at Sonepur. No costs.” 6. Be it clarified that pursuant to the order of deputation of the Petitioner’s husband to DRDA, Sonepur he was relieved from RVWPET No.107 of 2022 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:02:45 OCC. Keeping in mind that the husband of the Petitioner was already relieved from OCC, the above quoted order in OA No.2093 of 1996 was passed. Further, in compliance of such order, the Director, DES on 24th November, 1999 passed an order reverting the Petitioner to the parent department. 7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that by the time the order of reversal of her husband to the parent department was passed, he was continuing under OCC and was drawing salary. In absence of any fresh relieve order from OCC, Petitioner’s husband was not in a position to join the parent department. As such, husband of the Petitioner again moved learned Tribunal in OA No.2183 of 2000. The said OA was disposed of on 28th September, 2001 holding that no relieve order was necessary from the OCC to enable the Petitioner’s husband to join in his parent department, as he had already been relieved by OCC to join DRDA, Sonepur. Further, the Director, DES had already passed an order reverting the Petitioner’s husband back to the parent department. Assailing the said order, husband of the Petitioner filed OJC No.16071 of 2001, which was dismissed vide order dated 30th March, 2022. In this petition, the Petitioner sought to review the said order. It is submitted that while disposing of OA No.2093 of 1996, learned Tribunal had made an observation that the Government will post the Petitioner’s husband suitably in the parent department within fifteen days. Since that order was not complied with, husband of the Petitioner had moved MP No.310 of 1999 before learned Tribunal in the aforesaid disposed of OA and in disposing of MP No.310 of 1999, learned Tribunal had observed that husband of the Petitioner was continuing in OCC, when order of reversion to RVWPET No.107 of 2022 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:02:45 the parent department was passed. Thus, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Writ Court failed to appreciate that a relieve order was necessary for husband of the Petitioner to join in his parent department. In the interregnum, husband of the Petitioner died and his widow has filed the Review Petition as the services her husband could not be regularized in absence of any relieve order by the OCC and he could not get the retiral benefits during his lifetime. Hence, the order passed by the Writ Court should be reviewed. 8. Upon hearing Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the order sought to be reviewed as well as materials available in OJC No.16071 of 2021, this Court finds that learned Tribunal in its order dated 28th September, 2001, passed in OA No.2183 of 2020 has specifically observed that no relieve order was necessary to enable the husband of the Petitioner to join in his parent department. Further, learned Tribunal while disposing of OA No.2093 of 1996, directed the State Government to revert husband of the Petitioner to the parent department and post him suitably within fifteen days. It was also opined by learned Tribunal that husband of the Petitioner having not complied with the relieve order issued by the OCC, he was not entitled to the duty pay during intervening period and he should apply for leave as due and admissible. 9. From the materials available on record, it is manifest that while continuing at OCC, husband of the Petitioner was again deputed to work at DRDA, Sonepur. Upon receipt of such order OCC relieved the Petitioner’s husband to join at DRDA, Sonepur. Without complying with the said order, Petitioner’s husband RVWPET No.107 of 2022 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:02:45 moved learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 2183 of 2000. Neither any order protecting the Petitioner’s husband for not joining at DRDA, Sonepur was passed by the parent department nor any order, interim or otherwise, was passed in O.A. No. 2183 of 2000 regularising such period. The husband of the Petitioner remained indifferent in not joining at DRDA, Sonepur at his own risk. The only relief that was given to husband of the Petitioner was that he should apply for leave as would be admissible to him to regularize his services. The plea of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel that while disposing of M.P. No. 335 of 2000, learned Tribunal observed that on the date of disposal of the said petition, i.e., on 12th December, 2014, husband of the Petitioner was continuing in OCC, is not correct, as that was the submission of learned counsel for husband of the Petitioner. Thus, the plea that the husband of the Petitioner should have been issued with a fresh relieve order to join in his parent department, is a misnomer. 10. Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that entertaining the review petition would amount to appreciation of the materials on record afresh, which has already been considered during adjudication of OJC No.16071 of 2001, which is not permissible in review petition. 11. Accordingly, this review petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Rojalin (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge RVWPET No.107 of 2022 Page 5 of 5