The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17669 of 2021 Ujwala Chandra Nahak …. Petitioner Mr. R.R. Ray, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 31.07.2025 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 15.04.2021 so passed by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-16. Vide the said order, prayer of the petitioner to absorb him/adjust him/re-engage him in any existing Class-III post was rejected. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner while continuing as a Junior Typist under the administration of Integrated Watershed Development Project, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam in terms of order dated 09.03.1992 under Annexure-3,, was terminated from his services vide order dated // 2 // 21.10.1999 under Annexure-10. Challenging the same, petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3104(C) of 1999. 4.1. It is contended that the said original application was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2012 under Annexure-11 inter alia with the following observation which reads as follows:- “As such, it need not be said that if there shall be any vacancy in the existing project at different places or any new project will be taken up in near future, the for his applicant’s case shall be considered reengagement keeping in view his seniority, on the basis of his date of entry into service, for which this Tribunal expresses no opinion.” 4.2. It is contended that petitioner challenging the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-11, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) NO.5639 of
Decision
2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2013 inter alia with the following observation:- in the order “Though we do not find any error apparent on the face of the present writ impugned application, however, we dispose of the writ petition directing the aforesaid opposite parties (Respondent No.2 & 3) to comply with the order of the learned Tribunal without being influenced by any observation made in the order with regard to the continuity in service of the petitioner, the opposite parties shall examine the record in connection with the same. While doing so, the service into the petitioner shall also be period of consideration, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner was in continuous service without any break. The said opposite parties 2 and 3 shall take a final decision in this regard within a period of two months from today.” taken Page 2 of 7 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that on the face of the observation issued by the Tribunal in its order under Annexure-11 and further observation made by this Court in its order under Annexure-12, petitioner’s prayer for re- engagement was never considered in spite of availability of vacancies. Accordingly, finding no alternative, petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.22835 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 29.11.2019 under Annexure-15, when directed O.P. No.1 to consider petitioner’s grievance, but without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 under Annexure-16. 4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-11 and further order passed by this Court under Annexure-12 as well as subsequent order passed under Annexure15, absorption/re-engagement of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 under Annexure-16. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that challenging the order of termination issued in favour of the petitioner on 21.10.1999 under Annexure-10, petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3104(C) of 1999. The Tribunal vide its Page 3 of 7 // 4 // order dated 19.11.2012 under Annexure-11 while was not inclined to interfere with the order of dis- engagement, only observed that petitioner’s claim for re-engagement be considered if any vacancy arises in future. 5.1. The order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-11 though was assailed by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.5639 of 2013, this Court also without interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal, observe that if any vacancy arises in future, petitioner’s claim be considered in terms of the observation of the tribunal. 5.2. Since after passing of such order, no vacancy ever arose, prayer of the petitioner for his re-engagement was not considered. This Court vide order dated 29.11.2019 under Annexure-15 when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim for his re- engagement, the same was duly considered and rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 under Annexure-16. It is further contended that vide order under Annexure-3, petitioner was engaged as a Jr. Typist in a World Bank assisted project. But due to closure of the project, petitioner was terminated vide order dated 21.10.1999 under Annexure-10. Since petitioner was engaged in a project after closure of the project, he was Page 4 of 7 // 5 // disengaged vide order dated 21.10.1999, which was never interfered with, petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of re-engagement. 5.3. It is contended that since in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal so confirmed by this Court under Annexure-11 and 12, no vacancy arose after passing of such order and petitioner was never re- engaged the prayer for his absorption in the post is completely misconceived and the same has been rightly rejected. It is also contended that petitioner in the meantime has already attained the age of superannuation, being a terminated employee since 1999. It is accordingly contended that petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while continuing in service pursuant to order dated 09.03.1992 under Annexure-3 in a project, he was terminated vide order dated 21.10.1999 under Annexure-10 after closure of the project and petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3104(C) of 1999. The tribunal vide order dated 19.11.2012 under Annexure-11, while was not inclined to interfere with the order of termination, only observed that if any vacancy arose in future, petitioner’s claim can be considered for his re-engagement. Order passed by the Tribunal though was assailed before this Court in Page 5 of 7 // 6 // W.P.(C) No.5639 of 2013, but this Court vide order under Annexure-12 while was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, only observed that petitioner’s claim for re-engagement be considered if any vacancy arose in future. 6.1. On the face of such order, when no step was taken to re-engage the petitioner as against any available vacancy, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(/c) No.22835 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 29.11.2019 under Annexure-15, when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim, the same after being duly considered was rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 under Annexure-16. 6.2. This Court taking into account the nature of order passed by the tribunal under Annexure-11 and the further order passed by this Court under Annexure-12 and 15, is of the view that since no document has been filed showing availability of vacancy and engagement of any similarly situated person against such available vacancy, prayer of the petitioner for his re-engagement has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order. Not only that since petitioner vide order dated 09.03.1992 under Annexure-3 was engaged in a project and terminated vide order dated 21.10.1999 under Annexure-10 on closure of the project, petitioner having not in employment w.e.f. 21.10.1999, is not entitled to get any relief. Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 6.3. This Court also finds that petitioner is not in service since 1999 and in the meantime he has also attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 so passed under Annexure-16 and accordingly is not inclined to interfere the same and dismiss the writ petition. However, as prayed for if the petitioner was otherwise entitled to get any financial benefit prior to his termination on 21.10.1999, the same be considered, if any approach is made in that regard. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed but with the aforesaid observation. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Aug-2025 18:53:47 Page 7 of 7