JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing & Judgment
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.13086 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Ramakanta Khillar …. Petitioner -versus- Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate For Opp. Parties: Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing & Judgment : 07.04.2025 V. Narasingh, J.
Legal Reasoning
of passing of the order of this Court in WP(C) No.19020 of 2015. 10. In the order at Annexure-13 after detailed discussion referring to the pay-band and existence of vacancies the Opposite Party-IDCO arrived at a conscious decision to extend all benefits of redesignation of Junior Assistant against the vacant cadre strength of Level-7 of pay matrix (Rs.25,500- 81,100/-) under ORSP Rules, 2017 to the Petitioner. But while doing so the same has been done with effect from 29.09.2021. It is not in dispute that the rationalization of NMR came into effect from 1989 and no reason has been assigned as to why the Petitioner should not be considered as a Junior Assistant as claimed with effect from the date he went through the rigors of selection and found eligible to be considered at par with others similarly placed in the clerical cadre. In this context, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Annexure E/3. On a bare reading of the same, it is borne out that the Petitioner is in fact discharging the duties of clerical staff efficiently. Page 5 of 6 11. On a conspectus of the materials on record this Court is persuaded to hold that the decision to treat the Petitioner to be a Junior Assistant from the date of the order passed by this Court on 29.09.2021 instead of 5.6.2010 is liable to be set aside since the same suffers from the vice of non-application of mind resulting in manifested arbitrariness. 12. Accordingly it is directed that the Petitioner shall be treated as a Junior Assistant with effect from 5.6.2010 with all consequential service and notional financial benefits. So far as seniority of the Petitioner is concerned, the same shall be fixed at the bottom of the cadre to which he belongs since he has not impleaded persons likely to be affected, as parties. 13.
Arguments
Heard Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the IDCO. 2. The Petitioner, who is working as a Junior Assistant, assails the order at Annexure-13 by which though he is designated as a Junior Assistant but the same has been done with effect from 29.09.2021 instead of 05.06.2010 as claimed. Page 1 of 6 3. It is apt to note that this is the second round of litigation of the Petitioner before this Court. Earlier the Petitioner moved this Court by filing WP(C) No.19020 of 2015 assailing the order dated 07.05.2015 which is annexed to this writ petition as Annexure-10 as well rejecting his prayer for regularization of service as Junior Assistant instead of Diarist-cum-Despatcher. This Court by order dated 29.09.2021 while setting aside such order, inter alia, on the ground of same being non-speaking one directed for fresh consideration of the Petitioner’s claim. 4. Consideration of such claim from the date of passing of the order of this Court is the grievance which is ventilated in this writ petition. It is not disputed that the Petitioner joined as a Mate in the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “IDCO”) on 16.08.1985. In the year 1989, IDCO in order to rationalize the wage structure had divided the NMRs into five categories vide Annexure-2 dated 17.10.1989. All graduates of different groups were re-designated as Assistant. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to Serial No.18 under the heading “Group-V (Clerical Grade) of the said Annexure and in the remarks column of said Serial No.18, it is mentioned that “All Graduates of different groups will be redesignated as Assistant”. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that on going through the rigors of selection, he was promoted to the Page 2 of 6 rank of Diarist-cum-Despatcher. But since by the time 1989 rationalization came into play he ought to have been designated as Junior Assistant and therefore, he joined the post under protest. Copy of such joining is on record at Annexure-6 and the same reads as under: “To The Divisional Head, Urban Haat Division, IDCO, Exhibition Ground Unit-III, Bhubaneswar Sub : Joining of Self. Ref : H.O Order No.11506/Dtd.05.06.2010 of Manager (P&A) (Sr). Sir, In response to above cited order I am joining as Diarist-cum-Despatcher with effect from 05.06.2010 (F.N) under protest. (Emphasized) Again I am to request you that as a graduate I appeared the written examination on 11.04.2010 along with other Matriculate candidates. the written examination. Several times I have represented to the management to promote me to a clerical cadre as considered previously. I was assured by the management to consider my grievance. qualified in I Therefore once again I request you to recommend my case for reconsideration & oblige. Yours faithfully/- Sd/- Sri Ramakanta Khilla Diarist-cum-Despatcher Urban Haat Division, IDCO Unit-III, Bhubaneswar.” Page 3 of 6 5-A. On a bare perusal of the said Annexure, which is extracted hereinabove, it is evident that the joining of the Petitioner as Diarist-cum-Despatcher was received by the authorities and the same is also evident from the endorsement therein. 6. Referring to the same, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the authorities reconsidered their decision and redesignated the claim of the Petitioner to be treated as Junior Assistant there is no rational to treat the same as effective from the date of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.19020 of 2015. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the IDCO, submits that as per the policy decision it was decided in 1989 to redesignate all Graduates as Junior Assistants, since at the relevant time admittedly the Petitioner was not a Graduate, he cannot have any grievance. So far as the joining under protest at Annexure- 6 is concerned, attention of this Court was drawn to Annexure D/3 wherein the words “under protest” are conspicuously absent and that the same is at variance with Annexure-6, on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. And, referring to Annexure D/3 it is submitted on behalf of IDCO that Annexure-6 cannot be relied upon. 8. It is apposite to note that in the counter affidavit filed recitals qua Annexure-6 have not been Page 4 of 6 controverted nor the endorsement of the authorities in the said Annexure. 9. In such background the stand of the authority is to be examined regarding validity of their action in treating the Petitioner as Junior Assistant from the date
Decision
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 7th April, 2025/Pradeep Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2025 16:40:35 Page 6 of 6