Laxmidhara Patra v. Chairman
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 25732 of 2024 Kishore Chandra Nayak ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Kamalakanta Nayak, Adv. -Versus- The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Legal Reasoning
………. Opposite Parties Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 03.01.2025 1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard Mr. Kamalakanta Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-OSRTC. 3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties to release his legitimate dues withheld by the OSRTC under Annexire-1, within a stipulated period. Order No. 02. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Jan-2025 18:42:30 4. Mr. Kamalakanta Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the claim of the Petitioner for grant of legitimate dues is based on the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by this Court 2 in OJC No. 8491 of 1999 (Laxmidhara Patra v. Chairman-cum- M.D., OSRTC & Ors.) and also subsequent order dated 29.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1424 of 2002 (Deepak Kumar Sahoo v. OSRTC). 5. Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/OSRTC vehemently contends that because of departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner the amount was realized from the Petitioner and, as such, the action so taken by the authority is well justified. Consequentially, he seeks for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the Petitioner was serving as Conductor in OSRTC in the year, 1989. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service. When the Petitioner was waiting to get his retirement benefits, an amount of Rs.64,019/- was deducted from his dues towards alleged shortfall of targeted income. The Petitioner submitted a representation to the Opposite Parties on 07.09.2024 vide Annexure-2. But, no action was taken on the same. 7. As it appears, the Opposite Parties have not proved the fact Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Jan-2025 18:42:30 with regard to recovery of the amount from the Petitioner on the basis of a target collection of revenue and nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the Opposite Parties can fix a 3 target for collection of dues on the basis of the condition imposed in the agreement and, more so, no agreement can also be executed in that regard. 8. In a similar case, i.e., in OJC No. 8491 of 1999 (Laxmidhara Patra v. Chairman-cum-M.D., OSRTC & Ors.), this Court, vide order dated 20.02.2008, taking into consideration the rival submissions made by the counsels, has observed as follows:- “…….Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel submits that after adjustment of the amount deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.37,126.80 to the Corporation which is described in detail in Annexure-A to the further affidavit dated 19.10.2000 filed by the opposite parties on 09.11.2000, whereas in the original counter affidavit it has been mentioned that an amount of Rs.36,549/- has been deducted from the dues of the petitioner, since a target was fixed by the Corporation and the petitioner failed to deposit the targeted amount towards collection for sale of tickets to the passengers. At this stage, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this target was fixed by the Corporation unilaterally without taking any consent of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons like the petitioner, at that point of time who were working as Conductors under the Corporation. However, the petitioner had deposited all the collection amount every day after completion of his day’s duty in the bus, in which he was working as a Conductor. As such, he is not liable to pay any amount towards shortfall since he has no roll to play for the short fall of the collection amount, which depends on travelling of passengers in the bus. The Conductor has to collect the amount for each ticket sold to a passenger for his journey in the bus, in which he was performing his duties. Since the petitioner was not a party to any agreement relating to fixation of any target and his responsibility towards shortfall, he is in no way liable to pay the shortfall amount. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has not entered into any agreement with the Corporation relating to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Jan-2025 18:42:30 4 fixation of targeted amount for working as a Conductor in respect of a Bus, no liability can be fixed on him to pay the short fall amount since he had deposited the amount collected by him after end of the journey before the competent authority. In view of the above, the opposite parties are directed to pay the balance dues to the substituted L.Rs. of the petitioner, who have already been substituted vide order dated 20.09.2007 of this Court, since the petitioner died on 29.07.2004, amounting to Rs.37,126/-, which is due and admissible to the deceased petitioner within a period of one month hence along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it becomes due and admissible as per office order dated 27.01.1999 (Annexure-2) of the opposite party NO.3, till the date of actual payment.” This Court, taking into consideration the said order passed in Laxmidhara Patra (supra), disposed of W.P.(C) No. 1424 of 2002 (Deepak Kumar Sahoo v. OSRTC), vide order dated 29.07.2019, and declared the recovery made under Annexure-6 to the said Writ Petition as illegal and directed that the amount already deducted be returned to the Petitioner with 6% per annum within a period of two months. 9. By applying the principle decided in Laxmidhara Patra (supra) to the present case which is analogous to that case, the order dated 04.09.2024 under Annexure-1 passed by the Asst. Manager (Depot) OSRTC, Rourkela is set aside and the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount to the Petitioner which has been deducted from his retirement benefits, as per Annexure-1, along with 6% interest as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Jan-2025 18:42:30 5 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Jan-2025 18:42:30