The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) (OA) No.246 of 2018 Manorama Muduli …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. M. Pati, Advocate State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Rath, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 02.07.2024 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner who happens to the wife of the deceased employee late Rama Chandra Muduli is before this Court inter alia with the following prayer:- “(a) Admit the original application. (b) After hearing the counsel appearing for the applicant, quash the impugned order of termination vide Annexure-4 thereby directing the respondents authorities to regularize the service of the husbands of applicant prior to his death and sanction and draw and disburse the family pension in favour of the present applicant w.e.f. 20.10.2017 onwards with all pensionary and financial benefits, arrears etc. as due and admissible within a time bound period without any further delay”. 4. It is contended that Petitioner’s late husband was appointed as an Addl. Collection Peon vide order of // 2 // appointment issued on 09.01.1992 under Annexure-1. In spite of his long continuance, services of the deceased employee when was not regularized, he approached the Tribunal in O.A No.1475 (C)/1994. The Tribunal vide order dtd.24.06.1994 while admitting the matter with issuance of the notice passed an interim order that the services of the deceased employee shall not be terminated without leave of the Tribunal. It is contended that ultimately the matter in O.A. No.1475 (C) of 1995 was
Decision
disposed of vide order dtd.29.09.2011 under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that the Tribunal vide order under Annexure-3 directed the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the deceased employee for his regularization as against any Class-IV post. But Opposite Party No.3 illegally and arbitrarily without complying the order so passed by the Tribunal in either way, terminated the employee concerned vide the impugned order dtd.08.02.2012 under Annexure-4. 4.2. It is contended that since the Tribunal vide order under Annexure-3 directed the Opposite Parties to take a decision on the claim of the deceased employee for his regularization, instead of passing of an order either rejecting or allowing the claim for regularization, no order of termination could have been passed terminating the services of the deceased employee w.e.f. 04.02.2012 vide Page 2 of 6 // 3 // the impugned order dtd.08.02.2012 so issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-4. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that similarly situated persons appointed as Addl. Collection Peon in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3 were regularized in their services. But the late husband of the Petitioner was discriminated with passing of the impugned order in question. 4.4. It is also contended that the Tribunal while issuing notice of the matter vide order dtd.13.02.2012 also take note of the submission of the learned counsel appearing therein that persons similarly situated are continuing whereas the late husband of the present petitioner was terminated. 4.5. It is contended that since similarly situated persons are allowed to continue, termination of the deceased employee from his service w.e.f. 04.02.2012 vide order under Annexure-4 is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interfere of this Court. 4.6. It is also further contended that because of such order of termination issued under Annexure-4 not only the deceased employee suffered but also the present petitioner who happens to be the wife is having no source of income after the death of the deceased employee on 19.10.2017. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 5. Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State though on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that since the deceased employee continued in service by virtue of the interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1475 (C)/1994, his claim is not covered by the decision in the case of Uma Devi. But it is fairly contended that no reply has been given with regard to the plea raised in the writ petition regarding continuance of similarly situated employees in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3. 5.1. It is also contended that since the deceased employee was continuing on Ad hoc basis, he has got no right of regularization and accordingly while rejecting his claim Opposite Party No.3 terminated him from his services w.e.f. 04.02.2012. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner’s late husband was appointed as Addl. Collection Peon vide order of appointment issued on 09.01.1992 under Annexure-1. Claiming benefit of regularization, the deceased employee approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.1475 (C) of 1994 and the Tribunal while admitting the matter passed an interim order vide order dtd.24.06.1994 under Annexure-2. However, the Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Tribunal vide order dtd.29.09.2011 disposed of the matter with a direction on the Opposite Parties to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner for his regularization basing on the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi (3). But as found from the impugned order, Opposite Party No.3 instead of passing an order either allowing or rejecting the claim for regularization, terminated the deceased employee from his services w.e.f. 4.2.2012 vide the impugned order dtd.08.02.2012 under Annexure-4. It is the view of this Court that since the Tribunal directed for consideration of the claim of the deceased employee for his regularization, Opposite Party No.3 while considering the same could not have passed the order of termination which was not the direction of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that Opposite Party No.3 by misinterpreting the order passed by the Tribunal on 29.09.2011, terminated the services of the deceased employee w.e.f. 04.02.2012. 6.1. Therefore, because of such error which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash the same. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision with regard to the claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit of regularization and consequential sanction of pension as well as family pension in favour of the present petitioner. This Court Page 5 of 6 // 6 // directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision as directed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is however observed that while taking a decision with regard to the claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit of regularization, Opposite Party No.1 shall take into consideration the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that persons similarly situated and appointed in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3 were regularized. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jul-2024 12:32:39 Page 6 of 6