The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8555 of 2016 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Jayanta Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner (s) -versus- Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: : For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bismay Anand Prusty, Adv. Mr. Bikram Kishore Nayak, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Adv. Along with Associates (for O.Ps.1 to 5) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC (for O.P.6) Ms. Aditi Hota, Adv. (for O.P.7) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-23.04.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -25.06.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has challenged the proceeding of the Sub-Committee meeting of MCL held on 02.08.2013 at DRDA Conference Hall, Angul, show-cause notice dated 19.04.2016 issued by the General Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 Page 1 of 11 I. 2. (i) Manager, CWS(X), Talcher, MCL and the Termination order dated 07.05.2016 issued by the General Manager, CWS(X), Talcher. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: Facts culminating in filing of the present Writ Petition are that: The Petitioner’s maternal grandfather was the land-oustee of the village, Balugaon Khamar, Gongutia and Balugaon. The said land has been acquired by the Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. for the purpose of Lingaraj Open Cast Project. Therefore, the Petitioner’s maternal grandfather submitted an application for the employment of the Petitioner under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme. (ii) As per the policy, one of the family members of the land-oustee is entitled to be considered for employment in the MCL under the Rehabilitation scheme. Thus, Damburu Pradhan as land-oustee nominated the name of the Petitioner and applied for employment since no one except the Petitioner was eligible for employment from his family. The land outstee Damburu Pradhan has one son named Gumani Pradhan and one daughter named Droupadi Pradhan, as such the name of the Petitioner was sponsored and nominated for employment as other members of the family are not interested for employment. (iii) After careful consideration, the personnel Manager issued a letter pursuant to the sponsored names by the Government, directing the Petitioner’s maternal grandfather to appear before the Scrutiny Committee with relevant documents along with the nominee, in order to provide suitable employment to one of his family members.
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 Page 2 of 11 (iv) Thereafter, the Chief General Manager, MCL issued the appointment letter in favour of the Petitioner directing him to join in the post of Trainee (Mining) under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme as a nominee of the land oustee of Damburu Pradhan who is maternal grandfather of the Petitioner. (v) The Petitioner, thereafter, underwent training for the post of Trainee (Mining) and after completion of his training period, he was allowed to join in his duty with effect from 15.07.1996. (vi) The Petitioner has been rendering his service very sincerely and efficiently and never neglected in his duty for his future prospect. Therefore, his name has been considered by the DPC to promote him to the next higher post of Sr. D-E.O. Grade-II, in T & S, Grade-B. (vii) On being promoted, the Petitioner submitted his joining report for the post of Sr. D.E.O., Grade-II in T & S Grade-B at Central Workshop (X), Talcher. (viii) The Petitioner while continuing in his promotional post, a Sub- committee meeting was held on 02.08.2013 under the Chairmanship of Collector, Angul along with other members. In the said meeting, the proposal for discussion and decision as per agenda was made. (ix) Even though the Petitioner being the grandson of the land oustee has been lawfully appointed under the Rehabilitation & Resettlement Scheme and he has also served for more than 20 years, in the said meeting a wrong decision was taken regarding termination of the Petitioner on the plea that/ he being the daughter’s son of the land oustee does not belong Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 Page 3 of 11 to the family member of the land oustee (Damburu Pradhan) and he cannot be allowed to continue. (x) The land outstee Damburu Pradhan first of all nominated his son-in-law
Legal Reasoning
Sri Duryodhan Pradhan who faced the interview but due to frequent illness he was unable to serve under the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 i.e. MCL. Thereafter, the nominee was changed to provide employment to the Petitioner who is the grandson (daughter’s son). (xi) It appears that the son of Damburu Pradhan has already been employed under the MCL at the relevant point in time, as such the name of the Petitioner had been considered for employment as the nominee of the land oustee. (xii) The Opposite Party No.7 (Loknath Pradhan) who is the grandon of land outstee Damburu Pradhan submitted a grievance petition to consider his case to provide him a suitable employment as a land oustee and the same was rejected due to delay in filing the said grievance petition, but subsequently the grievance petition was forwarded by the District Administration for which it was again reopened and fresh decision was taken for termination of the Petitioner vide the proceeding of the Sub- Committee meeting of MCL held on 02.08.2013 at DRDA Conference Hall, Angul (xiii) The petitioner has filed W.P(C) No.11065 of 2014, challenging the decision of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 02.08.2013 for termination of the Petitioner and praying therein to quash such resolution of the Sub-Committee as well as not to terminate the Petitioner from service. In the said Writ Petition, notice was issued. However, on Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 19.04.2016, the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5/ MCL issued show cause notice to the Petitioner calling him to show cause as to why his service should not be terminated. (xiv) Thereafter, the Petitioner was terminated vide order dated 07.05.2016 issued by the General Manager, CWS(X), Talcher. Hence, this Writ Petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) After long lapse of time Loknath Pradhan who is the grandson (son’s son) of land outstee Damburu Pradhan had applied for employment claiming himself as a rightful nominee of the land outstee. But, on the other hand, the father of said Loknath Pradhan had never applied for any employment under the MCL. He also did not object the employment of the Petitioner who was duly considered to get employment as the nominee of the land oustee. After lapse of 20 years, the said nomination has been challenged by the grandson (son’s son) of the land outstee Damburu Pradhan is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the son of land outstee Damburu Pradhan named Gumani Pradhan (father of the Opposite Party No.7) had never objected the employment of his brother- in-law as well as his nephew i.e. Jayanta Kumar Pradhan the present Petitioner. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.7 has no locus standi to challenge the nomination of the Petitioner after 20 years of employment of the present Petitioner. Hence, the decision taken by the Sub-committee Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:34:14 Page 5 of 11 was without jurisdiction as the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before he was terminated. (ii) Further, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging his termination from service, after long twenty years of service, even though, there is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct. It is submitted that the Petitioner is in no way at fault and continued in employment for a long 20 years to the best satisfaction of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5/ MCL authorities. As such with a legitimate expectation, a right for continuance in the service is accrued in favour of the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court i.e. Vikas Pratap Singh &Others Vrs. State Of and Chhatisgarh & others1 and Rajesh Kumar & Others Vrs. State of Bihar & Others2 to buttress his points. (iii) The maternal grandfather of the Petitioner, who was a land oustee, while nominating the name of the Petitioner for employment under the Rehabilitation scheme had categorically stated that the Petitioner is his daughter’s son. It is pertinent to mention here that the only son of the land oustee was already in employment on his own merit and his grandson i.e. Respondent No.7 was a minor at that point of time. As such, in the family of the land oustee, the Petitioner was the only eligible and available for such rehabilitation employment. It is further submitted, neither the Petitioner nor had his maternal grandfather ever made any