The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No. 2109 of 2017 Pradeep Kumar Pany & Ors. ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioners Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.11.2024 Order No. 15 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, he is permitted to implead Engineer-in-Chief, RWS&S, Odisha, Bhubaneswar as Opp. Party No. 6 in Court.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. C.M. Singh, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.07.07.2017 so passed by Opp. Party No. 6 under Annexur-15 series. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of reengagement was rejected. 4.1. It is the case of the Petitioners that all the Petitioners were engaged as HR Workers in RWS&S Organization. It is also not disputed that all the Petitioners were engaged after 12.04.1993 and disengaged in the year 2003. But such disengagement made in the year 2003 was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1184 of Page 1 of 7. 2013 and 1198 of 2013 inter alia on the ground that similarly situated HRs engaged along with the Petitioners and included in the list of 877 HRs were allowed to continue. The Tribunal vide order dtd.12.06.2013 under Annexure-8 series while disposing the Original Application directed Opp. Party No. 3 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of re-engagement. 4.2. It is contended that basing on the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-8 series, information was called for by the Superintending Engineer vide letter dtd.13.08.2013 under Annxure-9 and by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 on 26.06.2013 under Annexure-18. But without proper appreciation of the Petitioners’ claim that because of the wrong committed by the authority, names of the Petitioners were not included in the list of 595 HR workers, and accordingly they faced the termination in the year 2003, claim of the Petitioners was initially rejected vide order dtd.13.08.2013 under Annexure-9. Challenging
Decision
order dtd.13.08.2013 Petitioners once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2491(C) of 2014. The Tribunal vide order dtd.17.05.2017 while disposing the matter issued the following directions. Directions contained in Para 5 & 6 of the order dtd.17.05.2017 so available under Annexure-14 reads as follows:- “5) Considering the above submission, it is found that the applicants were engaged after 12.4.1993 DLR/H.R. employees under RWS&S Division, Dhenkanal/Talcher. They were disengaged from the service in the year 2003 due to their long absence and stoppage of funds by the Govt. It is a fact that the applicants had earlier filed OA No.1184/2013 and 1198/2013. This Tribunal while disposing of the matter directed the Respondent no.3 to consider their representation di. 6.5.2013 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Vide letter dated 13.8.2013 (Annexure-9), the Superintending Engineer, RWS&S Page 2 of 7. Circle, Bhubaneswar has submitted his views to the Chief Engineer, Rural Water Supply & Sanitation, odisha, Bhubaneswar. It is clear from Annexure-9 that the same is not the rejection order and it is the view of the Superintending Engineer. Hence, the matter is still pending before the Chief Engineer, RWS&S, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. There is no evidence on record that the said representations were disposed of. Further, on perusal of Annexure- 13 it is found that the name of the applicants have been reflected as they were engaged after 12.4.1993 and against their names in remarks column, it has been mentioned as 'discontinued since 2003'. Further, it is alleged that similarly situated persons/juniors have been taken back as HR employee on introduction of office order No.15334 dt.16.6.2015 of the Government of Odisha, Housing & Urban Development Department. 6) Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 is directed to take a decision in the matter as per the order passed in OA No. 1184/2013 and 1198/2013 keeping in view the policy decision of the Govt. vide order No.15334 dt. 16.6.2015 of the Government of Odisha, Housing & Urban Development Department and particularly the fact that the juniors/similarly situated persons were taken back. If the decision goes in favour of the applicants, they be allowed to re- engage in service as before. The decision be taken in this matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4.3. It is contended that at the relevant point of time 877 HR workers were on the roll of the RWS&S Organization being engaged after 12.04.1993. Out of those 877 NMRs, Superintending Engineers of different RW&SS Circle wrongly prepared a list of 595 HR workers, and accordingly names of the Petitioners were omitted from the list. Petitioners accordingly were deprived to get the benefit of continuance and disengaged in the year 2003. It is contended that some of the juniors whose names were included in the list of 595 HR workers were allowed to continue and because of the wrong committed by the concerned Superintending Engineers of different circles, names of the Petitioners were not included in the list of 595 HR workers. Page 3 of 7. 4.4. It is also contended that the Tribunal taking into account the aforesaid contention of the Petitioners while disposing the matter vide order under Annexure-14 specifically directed Opp. Party No. 1 to look into those aspect and to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioners. But it is contended that without proper appreciation of the direction issued by the Tribunal under Annexure-14 and the fact that the because of the wrong committed by the concerned Superintending Engineer of different RWS&S Circle, names of the Petitioners could not be included in the list of 595 HR workers, claim of the Petitioners was again rejected vide impugned order dtd.07.07.2017 under Annexur-15 series. 4.5. It is contended that it is not disputed that 877 HR workers were working in RWS&S Organization having been engaged after 12.04.1993. But while preparing the List of 595 HR workers basing on the list submitted by Superintending Engineer of different RWS&S Circle, names of the Petitioners were excluded from the said list. However, some of the juniors who were included in the list of 595 HR workers were allowed to continue. The said fact on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-14 should have been taken into consideration by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1. Not only that while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim relevancy and effect of the letter issued by the self-same Govt. on 26.06.2013 under Annexure-18 was never looked into. 4.6. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the impugned rejection so available under Annexure-15 series are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Page 4 of 7. 5. Mr. Singh, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since Petitioners were engaged after 12.04.1993 which is after the cut-off date fixed by the Finance Department, they are not eligible to be engaged at the first instance. It is also contended that Petitioners have been disengaged since 2003, as they absconded from their duty. Claim of the Petitioners for their reengagement was initially rejected pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1184/2013 and 1198 of 2013 vide order dt.13.08.2013 under Annexure-8. Petitioners when again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2491(C) of 2014 and the Tribunal directed for consideration of the Petitioners’ claim taking into account the policy decision of the Govt. so issued on 16.06.2015 under Annexure-10, claim of the Petitioners was duly considered by Opp. Party No. 6. 5.1. But since it is found that Petitioner’s name are not there in the list of 595 HR workers so submitted by different Superintending Engineers of RWS&S Circle and they have faced disengagement in the year 2003, claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of reengagement has been rightly rejected vide order dtd.07.07.2017 under Annexure-15 series. It is accordingly contended that no interference is called for by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that all the Petitioners admittedly were engaged as HR Workers after 12.04.1993. As found from the record the dispute arose when out of 877 HR workers working at the relevant point of time, a list of 595 HR workers were furnished to the Govt. basing on the list Page 5 of 7. submitted by different Superintending Engineers of RWS&S Circle. 6.1. As found from the record because of such preparation of a list of 595 HR workers, names of the Petitioners were excluded from the list and accordingly they were disengaged in the year 2003. But as found from the letter issued by the Govt. on 26.06.2013 under Annexure-18, Chief Engineer, RWS&S, Odisha, Bhubaneswar was requested to clarify the circumstances under which 877 nos. of HR workers were reduced to 595 and the reason thereof. No document has been filed by the State showing compliance of the said request made by the Govt. under Annexure-18. 6.2. Therefore, on the face of such request made by the Govt., it is the view of this Court that Petitioners were disengaged in the year 2003 because of non-inclusion of their names in the list, which was reduced to 595 in place of 877. The Tribunal though directed to look into those aspects while disposing O.A. 2491(C) of 2014 vide order dtd.17.05.2017 under Annexure-14, but it is found that the said fact has not been taken into consideration by Opp. Party No. 6 while rejecting the Petitioners’ claim vide the impugned office order dtd.07.07.2017 under Annexure-15 series. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the fact that Petitioners were disengaged because of the wrong committed by the authority in not including their names while reducing the list of HR Workers from 877 to 595, this Court is inclined to quash the orders passed by Opp. Party No. 6 on 07.07.2017 under Annexure-15 series. While quashing the orders issued under Annexure-15 series, this Page 6 of 7. Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioners for their re-engagement. 6.4. It is however observed that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the request made by the Govt. vide letter dtd.26.06.2013 under Annexure-18 and the observation and direction made by the Tribunal in its order dtd.17.05.2017 under Annexure-14 shall be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. Not only that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that juniors to the Petitioners were included in the list of 595 HR Workers and they are continuing as on date shall also be looked into by Opp. Party No. 1. 6.5. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision as directed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and copy of such order be communicated to the Petitioner No. 1 within the aforesaid time period. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2024 15:11:38 Page 7 of 7.