Jyotirmaya Sadangi v. Opp. Parties Represented by Additional Government
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 13072 of 2024 Jyotirmaya Sadangi .… Petitioner Represented by Mr. K.K.Swain, Advocate State of Orissa & Others .… - Versus - Opp. Parties Represented by Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 21.06.2024 Order No. 34. . 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) A writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the Collector-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kandhamal under Annexure-8 and necessary direction may be made to the opposite parties to release the monthly remuneration of the petitioner for the period from 30.06.2006 to 31.03.2008 i.e. the period he has worked as Education Volunteer and he may be absorbed as Gana Sikshyak in terms of the resolution dated 16.02.2008 issued by the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-7 within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; (B) And any other order/orders or direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall remain ever pray. 4. The petitioner claims to have been engaged as Education Page 1 of 5 Volunteer under the E.G.S. Centre, of Jhiripani Grama Panchayat under Tumudibandha Block of Kandhamal district in the year 2006. Initially his monthly remuneration was Rs. 1,000/- which was enhanced to Rs. 1700/-. The petitioner claims that the enhanced remuneration for the period from 30.06.2006 to 31.03.2008 was not paid to him. He approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6785 of 2009 challenging the non- release of his arrear salary. This Court directed the Collector, Kandhamal to consider this grievance as contained in a representation. The Collector, vide order dated 03.05.2010 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the E.G.S. Centre in question has been closed on 01.10.2005 and was never reopened. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Collector before this Court again in W.P.(C). No. 16122 of 2010. This Court, vide order dated 05.08.2016, inter alia, passed the following order: “XXX The Collector, Kandhamal shall take decision in accordance with law within reasonable with law within reasonable period, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that if the Collector, Kandhamal came to conclusion that the school in question has been closed w.e.f. 01.10.2005, there is no requirement to pass such fresh order. The Collector is expected to look into the matter regarding communication dated 12.12.2006 and pass speaking order. XXX” 5. Pursuant to such order, the Collector again considered the matter and made necessary inquiry and by order dated 11.01.2017, held that the claim of the petitioner does not have any merit. The petitioner thereafter again approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 6836 of 2017. This Court by order dated 22.08.2022, remitted the matter to the Collector to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh after taking into account the documents referred to by the petitioner and by giving him an Page 2 of 5 opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to such order, the Collector considered the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and also the inquiry report submitted by the Block Education Officer, Tumudibandh vide letter dated 09.10.2008. After considering all the materials on record, the Collector came to the definite conclusion that the claim of the petitioner for absorption as Gana Sikhyak and release of remuneration for the period from 30.06.2006 to 31.03.2008 is without any merit. Said order, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-8 is impugned in the present writ application. 6. Heard Mr. J.R.Khuntia, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 7. Mr. Khunita would argue that the finding that the E.G.S. Centre had been closed down w.e.f. 01.10.2005 is perverse and not based on record. He relies upon the register and E.G.S. enrollment, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-4, wherein the CRCC of Jhiripani Grama Panchayat has endorsed his signature putting the date as 07.05.2007. Mr. Khuntia further refers to some affidavits sworn by some ex-sarapanchs of the Grama Panchayat to support his claim that the E.G.S. Centre was functioning till 31.03.2008. 8. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand would contend that the Collector has not only referred to all the documents and records but also the inquiry reports submitted by the Block Education Officer. He further submits that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the inquiry report as no malafides can be attributed. Page 3 of 5 9. This Court finds that the Collector has taken into consideration several relevant facts to hold that the E.G.S. Centre was not operational at the relevant time. The Collector has taken note of the fact that no funds were released towards girls uniform to the said E.G.S. Centre for the year 2006-07. He has also referred to the inquiry report of BRCC, Tumudibandha dated 05.11.2008 along with the statement of the Sarapanch and statement of villagers of Gundabaru and statement of CRCC to the effect that the petitioner was not working as E.G.S. Volunteer. Moreover, it is the specific finding that the petitioner had managed to obtain the signature of the Sarapanch concerned assuring the latter to work as Education Volunteer in the E.G.S. Centre. The Collector further took note of the fact that the E.G.S. Centre was closed on 01.10.2005 and the centre was neither reopened nor any advertisement was published for engagement of new Education Volunteer. In fact a closure report of the E.G.S. Centre w.e.f. 01.10.2005 was also submitted to the State Project Director, OPEPA, Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 17.07.2007 and 08.11.2007 of District Project Coordinator, SSA, Kandhamal. Again reference has been made to the inquiry report of the Block Education Officer, Tumudibandha vide letter dated 09.10.2018 to the effect that the petitioner was never engaged as Education Volunteer by the village Education Committee, Gundabaru but he managed to obtain signatures of the committee members and villagers with the help of his father, Surjya Narayan Sadangi assuring them that he will work as E.V. at the Centre. 10. As regards the affidavits sworn by some of the former Page 4 of 5 Sarpanchs, this Court finds that firstly, there was no occasion for them to file the affidavits in question and therefore, same are to be treated as self-serving in nature. Secondly, the contents of the affidavit run contrary to the statements of the Sarapanchs given before the BRCC, Tumudibandha. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to how the impugned order is bad in law. It is trite law that this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact rendered by quasi- judicial authority unless there is any patent illegality or violation of principles of natural justice, perverse finding, etc. None of such infirmities exists in the present case so as to persuade this Court to interfere in the matter. 11. In the result, this Court finds no merits in the writ application, which is therefore, dismissed. Deepak (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2024 19:57:49 Page 5 of 5