The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29232 OF 2022 Dhanurdar Champatiray @ D.D.Champatiray …. Petitioner(s) Mr.S.Rout,Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and another ….
Legal Reasoning
Opp.Party(s) Mr.S.P.Panda,AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO Order No. 09. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 06.04.2023 Heard learned counsel for the Parties. This Writ Petition involves the following prayer:- <It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the opposite party no.3 under Annexure-9; To issue a writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-6 in terms of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Mahesh Prasad Mishra vs. State of Orissa & Ors. Reported in 2012 (Supp. I) OLR 1035 and reimburse the enhanced differential amount of minimum wages to the petitioner; To issue RULE NISI; And may pass any other order(s) and direction(s) as would be deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.= Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 3. This is in second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, this Court in disposal of Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.2304 of 2020 by order dated 20.02.2020 gave direction to Opposite Party No.3 therein to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner to be filed by him along with documents. It is claimed that the representation being filed along with genuine or required documents, the representation has been rejected impugned herein. 4. Notice being served, the contesting opposite Parties brings a counter affidavit disclosing their reasons in rejection of the representation of the Petitioner impugned herein vide paragraph-4 has detailed herein below:- That, we the selfsame prayer the petitioner had <4. earlier filed W.P.(C) No.2304/2020 for reimbursement of enhanced differential amount of minimum wages, which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 20.2.2020 with a direction to the Opp. Party No.3 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner (to be filed by him along with documents). The petitioner submitted representation on 28.4.2022 without genuine/required documents, such as; (i) Labour Registration Certificate. As per R.D. Department Memorandum dated 3.3.2017 (Annexure-4), Labour Registration Certificate is mandatory where more than 20 labourers have been engaged for execution of the work. In the present case, the petitioner had engaged 36 labourers for execution of the work in question, as would reveal from the Salary sheet of the petitioner submitted 28.4.2022. Copies of the relevant Salary Sheets submitted by the petitioner is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/3. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // (ii) Escalation Bill Escalation Bill submitted by the petitioner demanding labourers engaged w.e.f. 17.06.2009 to December, 2012; whereas the work has been completed in all respect on 28.02.2012. A copy of the escalation bill and a copy of work completion certificate dated 28.02.2012 extracted from Online Management, Monitoring & Accounting System (OMMAS) are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-B/3 Series. (iii) Salary Sheets (Wages Register) Most Salary Sheets have been prepared without details as to when the payments were made. Copies of the relevant Salary Sheets submitted by the petitioner, which do not show date of engagement and payment are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-C/3 Series. (iv) Muster Roll The petitioner has not submitted Authenticated Muster Roll. The Muster Roll of the year 2008 and 2012 submitted by the petitioner appears to be manufactured and does not bear any endorsement of the then Junior Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer as is the statutory requirement. From a reading of Muster Roll, it would reveal that lobours were engaged for 13 days, whereas the petitioner has mentioned that the labourers were engaged for 15 days. As such the calculation of total days of engagement of each labourer as mentioned in the Muster Roll is not correct. Copies some pages of Muster Roll along with relevant extract of Appendix to Para-I of General Conditions of Contract is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-D/3 Series. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide Order No.6036 dated 3.8.2022 (Annexure-9) on the ground of non-submission of genuine documents as per the guidelines/modality stipulated by the Department of Rural Development vide Office Memorandum dated 3.3.2017 vide Annexure-4 for reimbursement of enhanced minimum wages consequent upon revision of minimum wages in the execution of PMGSY Works.= the Government of Odisha in Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 5. Considering the reason in rejection of the representation of the Petitioner, vide order dated 14.03.2023 this Court directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to obtain instruction from the Petitioner, if he is ready and willing to pursue his further remedy in an attempt to satisfy the doubts raised by the Authority and detailed in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit. 6. On further hearing of the proceeding, Mr.Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner, for Petitioner showing interest to further pursue the Authority with required material in an attempt to clear the doubts raised therein wants to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to meet with asking of the contesting Opposite Parties detailed in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit. 7. Considering the reasons in rejection of the representation of the Petitioner being non-providing of actual information or materials disclosed in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, this Court observes, let there be reconsideration of the representation of the Petitioner provided Petitioner meet with the requirement under sub- paragraphs-(i) to (iv) by providing authenticated and true copy of the materials involving series of doubts indicated therein and even clarifying the doubts of the Authority to where ever there is no possibility of material supports at least within a period of four Page 4 of 5 // 5 // weeks, as undertaken. In the event Petitioner co-operates the Authority by meeting the queries and doubts detailed in paragraph-4 at least within a period of four weeks, let there be reconsideration on the claim of the Petitioner by taking a decision, if necessary in the involvement of the Petitioner at least with a period of four weeks thereafter. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed as withdrawn, but however with liberty as prayed for. 9. Free copy of this order be handed over to learned State Counsel. (Biswanath Rath) Judge (M.S.Sahoo) Judge S.Dash Page 5 of 5