Bibhuti Bhusan Dikshit State of Odisha & Others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 19787 of 2024 Bibhuti Bhusan Dikshit State of Odisha & Others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Dr. Jitendra Kumar Lenka, Advocate Opp. Parties Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 27.11.2024 (Through hybrid mode) Order No. 06. 1. In the present writ application, the petitioner has made with the following prayer: “The petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your Lordships would be graciously please to issue rule nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the impugned orders dated 13/05/2015 and 19/10/2023 at Annexure- 12 & 14 respectively should not be quashed and as to why the Opp. Party should not be directed to confer with temporary status in favour of the petitioner and reinstate/absorbed the petitioner on regular basis before attaining the age of superannuation with all consequential service benefits. xxx xxx xxx.” Page 1 of 7 2. The petitioner was working as Additional Collection Peon in the office of the Tahasildar from 1984 to 1996. He was being engaged every year during the revenue collection season for a specific period as per the order of the Tahasildar. Although he had made several representations for observing him in the Class-IV post in regular basis, not having been successful he approached the Tribunal in O.A. 70 (C) of 1992 for regularization of his services. The said O.A. was disposed of on 17.05.1996 with a direction to consider his case for absorption on regular basis as against any Class- IV post. 3. Pursuant to the said direction, the Collector, Kendrapara had instructed all the Tahasildars of Kendrapara District to prepare a list of persons appointed seasonally/temporarily as Class-IV employees in order to give them a chance for consideration of their appointment in regular Class-IV posts. But the case of the petitioner was not considered and he continued as the Additional Collection Peon. 4. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 3142 (C) of 1997 before the
Decision
Tribunal and the application was disposed of on 02.08.2013 directing as follows: Page 2 of 7 “Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and keeping in view the fact that the applicant was appointed for a certain period in different years as per requirements of the respondent authorities and he had been appointed without following due selection process by a duly constituted selection committee, we are of the considered view, the relief as has been sought for by the applicant in this O.A. cannot be entertained. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of. However, if there shall be any further requirement for engagement in Class-IV post either on contractual basis or daily wage basis or on regular basis, the applicant is at liberty to submit his application for such engagement alongwith his testimonials mentioning detail particular of the period of services rendered by him, and if such individual application is filed by the applicant, the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent no.3 is at liberty to consider the case of the applicant for his engagement along with all other similarly placed persons, subject to fulfilling of all the terms and conditions. So far as the upper age limit is concerned, the authority concerned shall relax the same taking into account the period he had rendered his services under his establishment and his past experience in the filed. Further, a submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, if as on date the applicant is still continuing as Addl. Collection Peon under respondent no.3, Page 3 of 7 he may be allowed to continue as before.” 5. While the petitioner was continuing as temporary Collection Peon, he again submitted applications on 02.08.2013 and 15.01.2024 for appointment to Class-IV on temporary basis and his applications were forwarded to the Collector, Kendrapada by the Tahasildar, Aul on 22.01.2024 but his applications have been rejected on 27.01.2015 by the learned ADM on the ground that it cannot be considered in view of the terms of the Finance Department Resolution 31715/F dated 04.09.2012. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal in O.A. 88 (C) of 2016 and after abolition of the Tribunal the case was transferred to this Court and renumbered as WPC (OAPC) No. 88 of 2016. The said application was disposed of on 24.04.2023. The following portion of the order is extracted below : “Considering the submission made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Petitioner is directed to make fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.3 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period of two (2) weeks hence. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to dispose of the representation in accordance with law within a period of 3 (three) months. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioner within that time. Page 4 of 7 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.” 6. Pursuant to the said order the case was disposed of on 19.10.2023 by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Kendrapara. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below: “As per the report of the Tahasildar, Aul, the petitioner Sri B.B. Dixit prayed for appointment Class-IV post on Temp. status as per GO No. 31715/F dtd.4.09.2012, Finance Deptt, Odisha. The said letter of Govt. signifies vide Point No.5 (a), the eligibility condition regarding grant of Temp. status an absorption of casual/daily wages labour engaged in different Govt. establishment prior to 12.4.1999 against regular Group-D vacancies as follows: 1) That the employees must have rendered continuous service since their initial engagement. Engagement at least 240-days in a year shall be construed as a complete year of engagement for this purpose. 2) That the date of initial engagement i.e., prior to 12.4.1993 and continuity of such service shall have to be confirmed by the concerned Head of Office and countersigned by the concerned Head of Deptt. In the above case, though the petitioner Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Dixit have been engaged prior to 12.4.1993 but have not rendered continuous service since his initial engagement. Page 5 of 7 There is no continuity of engagement at least 240- day in a year. Due to discontinuity his services have not been certified by the concerned Head of Office/Deptt. Besides above, the Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide their Letter No.21839/R&DM dtd. 19.06 2023 have sought for information of Addl. Collection Peon for regularization of their services keeping in view the number of writ application filed. In this connection the Tahasildar, Aul has submitted the name of the petitioner Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Dixit along with others which has been submitted to the Govt. in R&DM Deptt. Vide District Office Letter No.1449/Estt. Dtd. 11.08.2023 for consideration. On the above observation, I am in a consider views that though the petitioner is not eligible for temporary status as per guidelines of the Govt.. in Finance Deptt. vide No. 31715/F dtd 04.09.2012. But his name along with others of Aul Tahasil has been submitted to the Govt. for consideration on regularization of their services as it is a Govt. Policy decision. Accordingly, the representation of the Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Dixit, S/o. Late Gadadhar Dixit of Village Demal under Aul Tahasil dtd. 19.07.2023 is hereby disposed of.” 7. Challenging the said order, this writ application has been filed. Page 6 of 7 8. Dr. Jitendra Kumar Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked as Additional Collection Peon in the office of the Tahasildar from 1984 to 1996 i.e. for more than - 240 days and as his father was working as V.L.W., the case of the petitioner should have been sympathetically considered for absorption any Class-IV post. 9. As the petitioner has been working as seasonal Collection Peon and had not rendered continuous service for at least 240 days in a year during his initial engagement, his case has rightly not been considered by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Kendrapara. 10. After perusing the order of the ADM dated 19.10.2023, I do not find any illegality in the same so as to interfere with the said order. 11. The writ application being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed. (Savitri Ratho) Judge puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 17-Dec-2024 18:53:36 Page 7 of 7