Patitapaban Pattanaik Union of India & Ors. … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No.14543 of 2019 Patitapaban Pattanaik Union of India & Ors. ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. B. Dash, Sr. Panel Counsel (O.P.1) Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA (O.P.2) Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate (O.P.4) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 21.03.2024 Order No. 14 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. As it reveals from the office note, A.D. has back from opposite party no.6 after valid service. But none appears for opposite party no.6 at the time of call. 3.
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in 2003, which is after long lapse of more than 21 years. 9. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that in the Policy of rehabilitation formulated by the NALCO authorities, there are two categories of persons eligible for receiving employment assistance. The first category is Locally Displaced Persons (LDP) whose entire land and house has been acquired for NALCO project. The 2nd category is Substantially Affected Person who is left with 2/3rd of his land after acquisition. As per the Policy, one nominated person of each LDP/Substantially Affected Person family will be offered employment subject to vacancies being available, the nominee possessing the requisite qualification and further subject to the condition that Locally Displaced Persons will get preference over the Substantially Affected Persons. On the other hand, opposite party-NALCO in the counter affidavit submitted that it had prepared a list of LDP numbering 600 and NALCO authorities are trying to provide employment to person from among the list of LDPs prepared in the year 1984. The Policy, as outlined by the NALCO authorities, is that the claim of the Substantially Affected Persons could be considered after consideration of the claims of the LDPs. This decision of the NALCO dates back to the year 1984 and the list of Locally Displaced Persons, from which the appointments were made, has remained unchallenged. The Page 3 of 5 petitioner at an appropriate point of time would have laid his claim as a Substantially Affected Person. Having failed to do so, his claim at this distant point of time cannot be sustained. Moreover, the authorities have already laid down a policy that the Substantially Affected Persons could be considered only after the case of LDPs were considered. Since it is their submission that they are making appointments only from the list of LDPs numbering 600 prepared in the year 1984, any claim of the petitioner to be considered as a Substantially Affected Person would not be valid at this distant point of time. Therefore, in the event, the case of the petitioner is considered at this distant point of time, it would unsettle the settled position by opening a floodgate. More so, the list which was prepared by the NALCO in 1984, has remained unchallenged which cannot be interfered at this stage. Though, reliance has been placed on the judgment in Govinda Chandra Naik v. Collector, Angul & Ors, 2011 (Supp.II) OLR 267, the ratio decided therein is not applicable to the present case. 10. The land was acquired in 1981. The petitioner approached this Court in 2003, after a long lapse of 21 years. Thereby, the same is grossly barred by limitation. Apart from the same, reliance has been placed that since one Bhagirathi Pattnayak has got compassionate appointment, the petitioner’s case should be considered for compassionate appointment. But as per the rehabilitation policy, one of the family members is eligible to get compassionate appointment and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that Bhagirathi Pattnayak is the brother of the petitioner. As such at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to take notice against Bhagirathi Pattnayak, who did not Page 4 of 5 choose to appear in this case, as he has got compassionate appointment. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal in TA No.57 of 2009. As a result, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Alok (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: A.R-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 27-Mar-2024 13:11:07 Page 5 of 5
Arguments
Heard Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. B. Dash, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India appearing for opposite party no.1; Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party no.2 and Mr. M.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 21.07.2015 under Annexure-16 passed in T.A. No.57 of 2009, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, while dismissing the said O.A., denied to grant relief for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 5. Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the Page 1 of 5 petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a substantially affected person and is entitled to get compassionate appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme floated by the opposite party-authorities. It is further contended that one Bhagirathi Pattanayak, the brother of the petitioner has already got compassionate appointment and, as such, the petitioner, being stood in similar footing, is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground. But the same has not been acceded to by the authority. As a consequence thereof, he approached the Tribunal by filing T.A. No.57 of 2009 and the Tribunal, vide order dated 21.07.2015 rejected the claim of the petitioner. 6. Mr. B. Dash, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India appearing for opposite party no.1 contended that since the land has been acquired for the purpose of NALCO by the State Government, the Union of India has no role to play and, as such, it is the matter between the petitioner vis-à-vis NALCO. 7. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party no.2 contended that the total land measuring Ac.0.45 dec (out of Ac.0.66 dec.) of the petitioner’s mother has been acquired and due compensation has been paid. It is contended that at the time of acquisition of land in the year 1981, no house was constructed over the said land and since opposite party no.2 identified the petitioner as Locally Displaced Person, no rehabilitation assistance can be provided to him as per NALCO Policy. 8. Mr. M.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 vehemently contended that as per the Policy, unless the petitioner satisfies the requirement, he cannot get compassionate appointment. As such, one of the family members, namely, Page 2 of 5 Bhagirathi Pattanayak, the brother of the petitioner has already got compassionate appointment. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be sustained. More so, the acquisition of land having been made in 1981, the petitioner