The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24466 of 2022 Ghanashyam Rout and others …. Petitioners Mr. S.Mohanty,Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. D.Nayak, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 27.02.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice to the Opp.Parties to reinstate the petitioners by allowing them to discharge their normal duties and to release the consequential service benefits as they are legal entitled to in the interest of justice. And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, 4. contended that pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh’s Case, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.310 of 1996, every State was required to create a State Level Police Complaint Authority under the Chairmanship of a retired High Court // 2 // Judge or a District Level Police Complaint Authority under the Chairmanship of a retired District Judge. Accordingly, the Govt. of Odisha in the Home Department filed an affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court acceding to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovenoted Prakash Singh’s case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that a District Level Police Complaint Authority was created in the office of the Lokpal, Odisha as Police Complaint Authority headed by retired District Judge namely Mr. M.N. Pattnaik. Accordingly, some persons like the petitioner were engaged pursuant to an advertisement, by following a due selection procedure. Such appointment of the petitioner and similarly situated other persons were all made on contractual basis and, as it appears from the record, their contract was extended on annual basis up to the year 2017. In the process, the present petitioners were continuing in service from 2010 to 2017. On perusal of the materials on record it further appears that the aforesaid Police Complaint Authority under the Lokpal, Odisha was not extended further w.e.f. 01.04.2017. However, learned counsel for the petitioners alleged that although the petitioners was attending office and were performing their duties, they are not being paid their salaries up to 2018. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that since the service of the petitioners were not being regularized and they were not being paid salary, the petitioners approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the year 2017 by filing O.A. No.2073 of 2017. The aforesaid O.A. was transferred to this Court of an abolition of the Odisha Tribunal and reregistered as W.P.C(OA) No.2073 of 2017. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to file a better Page 2 of 5 // 3 // application. Thereafter, the present writ application has been filed. A counter affidavit has also been filed, wherein they have admitted that, pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.02.2011, the petitioners and similarly situated other persons were appointed on contractual basis, that such contract was extended on annual basis up to 28.02.2017, and their contract has expired w.e.f. 28.02.2017. Accordingly, the office of the Lokpal, Odisha intimated the Home Department, Government of Odisha regarding expiry of their contractual period and for extension of engagement of such contractual employees of the Police Complaint Authority. The counter affidavit further reveals that the Government, vide letter dated 04.08.2017, intimated that the extension of tenure of regular and contractual employees of the Police Complaint Authority vests with the Hon’ble Lokpal, Odisha and, that the same shall be done in conformity with GA Department resolution dated 27.08.2014. Further, it has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the aforesaid resolution of the GA Department relates to the engagement of retired Government servants and not with regard to extension of service of contractual employees. Accordingly, no decision has been taken by the office of the Lokpal, Odisha. The counter affidavit states that a series of correspondence were made with the Government by the Registrar, Police Complaint Authority for extension of engagement of contractual employees. Finally, the Government, vide letter dated 18.01.2018, in Home Department, intimated the Registrar of the Police Complaint Authority that the contractual period was extended up to 28.02.2017 and after expiry of such contractual period the person holding office becomes functus officio and deemed to have demitted the office, as such no extension can be granted of such contractual period in respect of the Registrar Page 3 of 5 // 4 // of such Police Complaint Authority. However, the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.3 does not reveal that any specific decision has been taken by Government with regard to persons like the petitioner who have been working in class-3 and class-4 posts on contractual basis. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2010 under Annexure-5, 8 persons were selected for Group-D post. The contract in respect of the petitioners and four others were not extended w.e.f. 20.02.2017; however, the other three persons were allowed to continue in service and are still continuing in service. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on the State-Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that the decision taken by the Home Department, Government of Odisha has been communicated to the office of the Lokpal. Further, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.3, learned Additional Government submitted that the same does not indicate anything about a final decision being taken by the Government with regard to the present petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners be directed to approach the Home Department, Government of Odisha by filing a detailed representation taking therein all grounds and in such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 may be directed to consider the same within stipulated period of time. 7. Considering such submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds within a period of three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the same keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were initially engaged on contractual basis, recruited by following a due selection process. The representation of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of the passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of such decision. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to dispose of the representation with a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation, direction the writ petition is disposed of. Rubi (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-Mar-2024 18:49:01 Page 5 of 5