The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OA) No.876 of 2013 T. Ramarao Patro …. Petitioner Mr. N. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 06.10.2023 Order No 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the rejection of his claim to get the benefit of appointment vide order dtd.20.04.2005 so issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Anenxure-7. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Junior Typist, he was allowed to continue on regular basis vide order dtd.25.04.1996 under Annexure-1. It is contended that while so continuing and due to closure of the scheme under which he was engaged, Petitioner was retrenched // 2 // from his services w.e.f.01.04.1999 vide order dtd.21.10.1999. It is contended that since similarly situated persons working under the scheme i.e. World Bank Aided Scheme for I.W.D.P. (W.P.C.O.), were allowed to continue with due adjustment vide order dtd.09.09.1999 under Annexure-2 and vide order dtd.06.01.2000 under Annexure-4, Petitioner claiming similar benefit approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2012(C) of 2003. The Tribunal vide order dtd.12.09.2003 under Annxure-5 disposed of the matter by directing Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner. 4.1. Subsequently, when Petitioner came to know that some vacancies are available as against the post of Junior Clerk –cum- Typist, he again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 499(C) of 2005. The Tribunal vide order dtd.18.05.2005 under Annexure-6 remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to examine the claim of the Petitioner and pass appropriate order. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim and the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated employees working under the scheme so extended vide order under Annexure-2 & 4, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.20.04.2005 under Annexure-7 series. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the vacancies became available due to the extension of the benefit of promotion vide office order dtd.12.10.2006 under Annexure-8. It is contended that in spite of availability of vacancies and the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated employees, the claim of the Petitioner was illegally rejected vide the impugned order dtd.20.04.2005 under Annexure-7 series. It is contended that Page 2 of 5 // 3 // the Petitioner since lost his service because of the illegal order of retrenchment, he is moving without any service till date. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court with passing of an appropriate order for reinstatement as against any suitable vacancy. 5. Mr. Balabantaray, learned AGA on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 2. It is contended that since the Petitioner was working as a Junior Typist under the aforementioned scheme and the scheme having been closed w.e.f.01.04.1999, Petitioner was terminated from his service w.e.f.01.04.1999 vide order dtd.21.10.1999 under Annexure-5 to the counter. It is also contended that since the Petitioner was working as a Junior Typist at the relevant point of time, because of non-availability of vacancies as against the said post, Petitioner could not be adjusted in terms of the guideline issued by Opp. Party No. 1 on 31.03.199 under Annexure-3 though persons similarly situated and continuing as Peon as well as Driver, were so adjusted vide order under Annexure- 2 & 4 to the writ petition. 5.1. Mr. Balabantaray further contended that since the Petitioner was continuing under the scheme and on closure of the scheme he was terminated from his service, there is no illegality or irregularity with his termination so also the rejection of his claim for reinstatement vide order under Annexure-7 series. It is also contended that since the Petitioner was terminated w.e.f.01.04.1999 and in the meantime more than 24 years have passed, considering Page 3 of 5 // 4 // the present age of the Petitioner, no order of reinstatement is justified. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Petitioner was admittedly working under the World Bank Aided Scheme for IWDP. There is also no dispute that the scheme was abolished w.e.f.01.04.1999. But as found from the circular issued by the Govt. in the Department of Agriculture on 31.03.1999 under Anenxure-3 to the counter so filed by Opp. Party No. 1, Govt. decided to give alternate posting to the incumbents holding the post under the said scheme. Basing on the said circular issued on 31.03.1999, persons similarly situated, who were working under the scheme were adjusted vide order dtd.09.09.1999 under Annexure-2 and vide order dtd.06.01.2000 under Annexure-4. It is the view of this Court that since persons similarly situated were adjusted in terms of the circular issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 on 31.03.1999 under Annexure-3, the claim of the Petitioner should have been considered by allowing him adjustment in any suitable post after the matter was remitted to the Opp. Party No. 1 by the Tribunal vide order under Annexure-5. 6.1. In view of such position and taking into account the fact that the Petitioner is approaching different court of law from the date of his termination and he is going without employment as on date as contended, this Court taking into account the benefit extended vide Annexure-3 & 4, while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend similar benefit in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this Page 4 of 5 // 5 // order. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before Opp. Party No. 1 for compliance. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Oct-2023 14:48:44 Page 5 of 5