The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26558 of 2023 Rabi Narayan Panda …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- Mr. A. Pr. Das, A.S.C. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA CORAM: Order No.
Decision
ORDER 04.09.2023 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “The petitioners therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show-cause as to why appropriate writ/writs shall to issued commanding/directing not be forthwith re-instate the petitioner in the post he was holding on the date of issue of Anenxure-7; them And if the Opposite Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute; // 2 // And pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;” 4. It is submitted by Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner initially was appointed on 20.06.1989 as Peon for 89 days along with two others against the existing vacancy, namely, S.P. Das, D.K. Uthansingh. He further submitted that the petitioner disengaged from service vide order dated 22.01.1991. On 20.10.1994, the petitioner was again engaged on regular pay basis. With effect from 26.07.1997, the petitioner was against appointed as ad hoc basis as Messenger for a period of 44 days and his service of the above named was being extended from time to time. Finally on 29.01.1999, the petitioner along with the above named two persons were engaged on regular basis their service book was opened. On 10.05.2007, the DIC, Cuttack issued letter to the General Manager, District Industrial Centre (DIC), Gajapati, Opposite Party No.4 was issued letters to the Opposite Parties in favour of the disengagement of the petitioner along with the above named to persons under Annexure-7 to the writ application. Such other of disengagement was challenged before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by the petitioner in O.A. No.593 of 2008. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said O.A. was dismissed and thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.16921 of 2010 was also dismissed thereby confirming the order passed by the leaned Tribunal. // 3 // 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that O.A. filed by another person, namely, S.P. Dash before the Tribunal was transferred to this Court, which was reconsider as WPC(OA) No.3314 of 2018 challenging the very same officer order dated 31.05.2007 and such writ application of S.P. Dash finally disposed of the by the coordinate Bench of this Court by directing the re-instate the above named petitioner with back wages. He further contended that the Opposite Parties had been challenged the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 30.06.2021. Accordingly, the same is also attains finality on the basis of the judgment dated 30.06.2021 passed in WPC(OA) No.3314 of 2018 the above named S.P. Dash has taken back to his service. After reinstatement, the above named S.P. Dash, the petitioner in WPC(OA) No.3314 of 2018, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25524 of 2022 a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.09.2022 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Opposite Party No.4, who shall take decision within a period of three months from the date of communication of the certified copy of the said order taking into consideration the order under Annexure-8 to that writ application. 6. Pursuant to order dated 28.09.2022, the petitioner has also approached the Opposite Party No.4, the said Opposite Party No.4 vide his order dated 23.05.2023 rejected the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-10 to the writ application. // 4 // Being aggrieved by such rejection order of the Opposite Party No.4, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Challenging the order of rejection under Annexure-10, the petitioner submitted that despite specific direction of this Court to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order under Annexure-8 to the previous writ application which of is placed in the above named S.P. Dash and the Opposite Parties did not take into consideration of such order and accordingly they have rejected the presentation of the petitioner without referring to the case of the above named S.P. Dash. In such view of the matter leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-10 is contrary to the order passed by this Court on 28.09.2022 by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that after disposal of the previous writ application also order dated 28.09.2022, the Opposite Party No.4 has considered the case of the petitioner and by the said order dated 23.05.2023 the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by said Opposite Party No.4. He further contended that after detailed discussion of the impugned order, the Opposite Party No.4 had come to a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits as claimed by him. Further learned Additional Government Advocate for the State does not dispute the fact that while consider the case of the petitioner, Opposite Party No.4 has not taken into consideration the case of one S.P. Dash as was // 5 // directed by the coordinate Bench of this Court earlier round of litigation. He further contended that since the representation of the petitioner has already rejected, the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts of the case as well as material on record, this Court is of the considered view that O.A. of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by a division Bench of this Court, however with similar view to extend the petitioner, namely, S.P. Dash by the coordinate Bench of this Court and order passed in favour of the aforesaid above named S.P. Dash has attains finality and the same was not challenged further. Moreover, the benefits accruing the benefits to the above named S.P. Dash, this Court analyze both the petitioner in the above named S.P. Dash is an identical footing thereafter, therefore, the case of the petitioner earlier by the Tribunal and subsequently, the coordinate Bench of this Court case of the petitioner is an identical, this Court deems its discretion to violates the Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as to petitioner has been standing on same footing and cannot be treated differently by order to confirm aforesaid principle of view this Court in the earlier writ application had directed the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner specifically keeping in view the case of S.P. Dash in whose case the order of this Court has been accepted and the benefits have been extended to the above // 6 // named S.P. Dash, this Court on a careful examined the impugned order under Annexure-10 is of the considered view that while considering the case of the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.4 has not taken under the judgment in the case of above named S.P. Dash. In such view of the matter, the impugned order under Annexure-10 dated 23.05.2023 is unsustainable in law and the same is quashed and the matter remanded back to the said Opposite Party to consider the same keeping in view the order passed in WPC(OA) No.3314 of 2018 under Annexure-8 to the writ application in the case of S.P. Dash vrs. State of Odisha and others within a period of two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. Decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Jagabandhu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Secretary-in-Charge Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 13-Sep-2023 17:45:15