The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C (OAC) No.4603 of 2011 Purusottam Dalabehera …. Petitioner Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 18.07.2023 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 3. At the outset, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced before this Court the instruction provided by the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Gunupur vide his letter dated 21.02.2023. The said letter be kept in record. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- <In view of the facts mentioned in para-6 above, the applicant prays for the following relief(s):- (i) quash the order dated 30.06.2010 under Annexure- 5, by concurrently holding the as bad, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. (ii) Pass such other order (s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” // 2 // 5. It is contended that the petitioner while continuing as Home Guard, he was deputed to discharge the duty of Jail Warder vide engagement order issued on 07.06.2006. On being so appointed as Jail Warder on contract basis, the petitioner was also deputed to undergo the training vide letter issued on 21.07.2006 under Annexure-9. The petitioner successfully completed the training. However, while continuing as such petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.579 of 2008 seeking regularization of his service as a Jail Warder. The Tribunal when disposed of the matter without issuing any direction for regularization of the services of the petitioner as Jail Warder vide it’s common order under Annexure-3, the matter was carried to this Court by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16881 of 2009. This Court vide order dated 19.04.2010 disposed of the Writ Petition along with a batch of the Writ Petition. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereunder:- for into consideration <Having regard to the undisputed fact that the recruitment is already over pursuant to the impugned notification, the directions issued to the State Government in Home Department in so far as the petitioners are concerned are required to be taken the purpose of examining their claim with a view to facilitate them to continue as Warders against the posts, which fell issued or vacant after otherwise. If at all posts are there and if the Government is satisfied having regard to the observation made by the Tribunal the selection process undergone by the petitioners is comparable and equal with that of regular recruitment and if the qualification required for Jail Warder is not distinctively and qualitatively different from the the petitioners were standard against which selected, the State Government may consider their the notification was Page 2 of 5 // 3 // case sympathetically and favourably on the ground that they have become over aged and the prospect of any public employment will be closed for them and taking into consideration their aspirations in the life and that family members are depending on them and they cannot be allowed to become destitute if their claims are not considered. All the relevant aspects shall be taken into consideration at the time of examining their case having regard to the observations made in the impugned order and take a decision in the matter if it is required to accommodate jails and pass appropriate orders to give effect to the observation made by the Tribunal and this Court. This exercise must be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.= them the in 5.1. It is contended that even though this Court directed the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioner by taking a sympathetic view, but without considering the claim in the light of the said order of this Court, the impugned order was passed on 30.06.2010 vide Annexure-5. The petitioner is before this Court against such order of rejection of his claim for his appointment as a Jail Warder. It is contended that since this Court had directed the authority concerned to take a sympathetic view of the matter and the petitioner on his engagement as a Jail Warder on contract basis vide order under Annexure-6 had also completed the required training, he was also otherwise eligible for his absorption against the post of Jail Warder. But the concerned authority without taking into account the observation and direction of this Court in its order dated 19.04.2010 simply rejected the claim. 5.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that similarly situated persons engaged as Jail Warder Page 3 of 5 // 4 // on compassionate ground were regularized in their services on their completing the training as was also acquired by the petitioner. It is accordingly contended that even though the petitioner after being reverted back is continuing as a Home Guard as on date, but in view of the order passed by this Court on 19.04.2010, the petitioner is otherwise eligible and entitled to be regularized as against the post of Jail Warder with quashing of the impugned order under Annexure-5. 6. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that the petitioner while continuing as a Home Guard he was allowed to work as a Jail Warder on contract basis. Even though petitioner acquired the training as imparted, but it confers no right in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner after being reverted is also working as a Home Guard as on date. The petitioner is therefore no way prejudiced by the rejection of his claim. 7. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and taking into account the instruction provided by the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Gunupur on 21.02.2023 wherein it has been indicated that 1 (one) post of Jail Warder is lying vacant, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner for his absorption as against the said vacant post of Jail Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Warder without being influenced by the rejection of the petitioner’s claim so made vide order dated 30.06.2010 under Annexure-5. Such a fresh exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2023 14:20:21 Page 5 of 5