The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No.1062 of 2016 Ajay Kumar Bera …. Petitioner Mr. B.D. Satapathy, Adv. -versus- A. State of Odisha and Others … Opp. Parties State Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.11.2023 Order No 17. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the rejection of his claim for approval of his services as a Hindi Teacher in Binoba Jayaprakash Bidyapitha, Sirakuli vide order dt.30.10.2014 under Annexure-11 by Opp. Party NO.2, basing on the impugned communication issued by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 on 01.09.2014 under Annexure- 10. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Hindi Teacher in the aforesaid school, the school was taken over w.e.f 07.06.1994. However, prior to such taken over of the school, though steps were taken to approve the services of the Petitioner, but the same was never materialized. Accordingly, when the school was taken over, the services of the Petitioner was not approved nor it was taken over by the Government. 4.1. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opp. Parties, the Petitioner though represented to the authority time and again, but no decision was taken in considering the grievance of the Petitioner. Petitioner accordingly approached the Tribunal in OA No.3115 (C) of 2007. The Tribunal vide order dt.24.01.2008 // 2 // under Annexure-8 while disposing the matter directed Opp. Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner’s claim. It is contended that on receipt of the order so passed on 24.01.2008, though Opp. Party No.2 moved the Government vide letter No.1026 dt.07.01.2009 under Annexure-9(A), but no instruction was provided by the Government in consideration of such request. 4.2. It is however contended that vide the impugned communication dt.01.09.2014 under Annexure-10, Government- Opp. Party No.1 on the ground that the Petitioner’s claim is barred by limitation, rejected the same and the same has been complied with by Opp. Party No.2 with passing of the impugned order dt.30.10.2014 under Annexure-11. 4.3. It is contended that since because of the latches of the Opp. Parties, the services of the Petitioner could not be approved prior to taken over of the school and the Tribunal in consideration of the Petitioner’s claim vide order dt.24.01.2008 directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision, Government-Opp. Party No.1 on the ground of limitation could not have rejected his claim vide the impugned communication dt.01.09.2014 under Annexure-10 and consequential order passed by Opp. Party No.2 on 30.10.2014 under Annexure-11. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed by Opp. Party NO.2 under Annexure-11 basing on communication issued by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-10 are not sustainable in the eye of law.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 5.1. It is contended that even though the school was taken over w.e.f 07.06.1994 , but the Petitioner never raised any claim for approval of his services with due taken over of his services till he approached the Tribunal in the year 2008. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in Page 2 of 4 // 3 // the year 2008, in respect of the claim of the year 1994, Government rightly rejected his claim vide Annexure-10 which has been followed by Opp. Party No.2 vide order under Annexure-11. It is accordingly contended that no illegality has been committed by Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher by the Managing Committee of the school vide order dt.14.03.1988 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined as a Hindi Teacher on 14.03.1988 as found from Annexure-2. Subsequently, though steps were taken to approve the services of the Petitioner with creation of one post of Hindi Teacher in the petitioner’s school, but the services of the Petitioner was never approved and in the meantime, the school was taken over w.e.f 07.06.1994. It is also found from the record that after being deprived to get the benefit of approval of his services, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No.2 and thereafter the Tribunal in OA NO.3115(C ) of 2007. The Tribunal considering the submissions made vide order dt.24.01.2008 under Annexure-8 disposed of the matter by directing Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim. 6.1. As found from the record, Opp. Party No.2 on receipt of the order so passed by the Tribunal moved the Government vide letter dt.07.01.2009 to provide necessary instruction with regard to compliance of the direction. Opp. Party No.1 on the face of such request made vide letter dt.07.01.2009 under Annexure- 9(A) kept the matter pending and only vide the impugned communication dt.01.09.2014 rejected the Petitioner’s claim on the ground of delay. The said rejection of the Petitioner’s claim by Opp. Party No.1 has been implemented by Opp. Party No.2 vide the impugned order dt.30.10.2014 under Annexure-11. Page 3 of 4 // 4 // 6.2. This Court after going through the materials available on record is of the view that on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal on 24.01.2008 under Annexure-8 and the instruction sought for by Opp. Party No.2 on 07.01.2009, Opp. Party No.1 since remained silent over the matter till the impugned communication was issued on 01.09.2014 i.e. after morØ than 5 years, it is not sustainable on 24.01.2008 in the eye of law. 7. In view of such position, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned communication dtd.01.9.2014 under Annexure-10 and consequential order passed by Opp. Party No.2 on 30.10.2014 under Annexure-11. While quashing both the communication as well as the order available under Annexure-10 and 11, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in accordance with law within a period of three months by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforesaid observation and communication, the
Decision
Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 11-Nov-2023 13:09:00 Page 4 of 4