The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OA) No.1155 of 2017 JagannathMohanty ..... Petitioner Mr.N.K. Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha&Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr.M.K. Balabantaray, AGA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 03.07.2024 Order No.15 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr.N.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dtd.03.05.2017 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit for the period from 15.01.1999 to 05.09.2007 was rejected on the ground that Petitioner left the organization and joined as an Asst. Driver in Police Organization being selected on his own accord w.e.f.05.09.2007. 4. It is also contended that person similarly situated as like one Maheswar Rout, who had also left the organization in the year 2007 for his joining in another establishment, was extended with the financial benefit for the period in question vide office order Page 1 of 5. dtd.05.11.2015 of the Superintending Engineer, RWSS Circle, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-9. But on the face of such benefit being extended in favour of similarly situated employees, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.1. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Dwijen Chandra SarkarVs. Union of India (UOI) &Ors.(1999) 2 SCC 119.Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 17 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “17. On the facts of the present case and especially in view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that when the transfer is in public interest and not on request, the two employees transferred cannot be in a worse position than those in the above rulings who have been transferred on request and who in those cases accepted that their names could appear at the bottom of the seniority list. Even in cases relating to request transfers, this Court has held, as seen above, that the past service will count for eligibility for certain purposes though it may not count for seniority.” 4.2. Mr. Mishra relied on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) &Ors. Vs. M. Mathivanan(2006) 6 SCC 57.Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 18of the said Judgment has held as follows:-