Orissa High Court
Case Details
AFR ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K W.P.(C) No.31253 OF 2022 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Alethes Kharin Dhanphul : Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and others : Opposite Parties For Petitioner For Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.Mohanty, Adv. Mr. D. Chhotray, Adv. : Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA J U D G M E N T CORAM : JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 14.09.2023 :: Date of Judgment : 29.09.2023 1. Through this Writ Petition, Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Special Secretary to Government in the Water Resources Department and seeks direction to the Opposite Parties for all the retiremental dues taking into consideration his service from 26.09.1986. 2. The case of the Petitioner as would appear from the record is that on 26.09.1986 she was initially appointed as Junior Assistant Page 1 of 7 // 2 // against the existing vacancy and subsequently she was promoted to the post of Senior Grade Typist. While she was continuing in the said post till 10.06.1988 without any break, suddenly without any reason or without complying any the mandatory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, she was retrenched from the service while allowing her juniors to continue in the service. She raised a labour dispute. Since conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Learned Labour Court, Jeypore under Section 10 of I.D Act. The Petitioner highlighted the aforementioned grievances of retrenchment/termination from service. Learned Labour Court by way of a detailed judgment has allowed the reference case in the file of I.D. Case No.55 of 1994 on 08.03.1996. The operative part of the judgment of the Labour Court reads as under:- the first party-Management <The reference is, thus, answered on contest against and accordingly the termination of service of Smt. A.K.Dhandphul Ex- adhoc junior typist with effect from 11.6.88 is held illegal and unjustified. She be reinstated to the post of junior typist without back wages within three months from the date of receipt of the order by the management.= 3. The said award of the Labour Court was assailed by the Management by filing O.J.C. No.14236 of 1996, whereas the Petitioner also challenging the award claiming consequential benefit and back wages by filing O.J.C. No.2262 of 1998. The Page 2 of 7 // 3 // learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.03.2013 allowed the Writ Petition of the Petitioner while rejected the Writ Petition of the Management. The operating part of the said judgment reads as under:- <14. With regard to O.J.C. No.2262 of 1998, in view of the above conclusion of this Court that the impugned award cannot be interfered with, as this Court finds that the said award has been notified by the State Government under section 17 of the Act, it is held that the said award is enforceable under sections 17-A and 18(3) (a) and (c) of the Act and is binding on the management. It is, therefore, directed that the the workman management shall forthwith will all consequential benefits, failing which, action may be taken under section 29 of the Act, against the management. 15. therefore, O.J.C. result, the No.14236 of 1996 is dismissed and O.J.C. No.2262 of 1998 is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs.= reinstate In 4. Despite specific direction of reinstatement of the Petitioner in the service with all consequential benefit, the Opposite Parties evaded compliances for eight months and eventually on 18.11.2013 the Petitioner was reinstated in the post of Junior Grade Typist. On 29.03.2018, she was also promoted to the post of Senior Grade Typist. The Petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 5. Meanwhile the Petitioner on 27.08.2015, 12.12.2019 and 27.08.2020 gave repeated representations claiming the consequential benefit of service, arrears of salary etc.as per the judgment of this court. Since her repeated representation yield no result, she had filed another Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.4427
Decision
of 2021. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 10.02.2021 directing the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department to consider her representation dated 12.12.2019 and take a lawful decision within a period of two weeks. 6. Pursuance to the aforementioned direction of this Court dated 10.02.2021, the Opposite Parties have now pass the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 at Annexure-10. 7. The Petitioner is assailing the said order dated 12.01.2022 at Annexure 10 inter alia contending that the impugned order passed by the Special Secretary to Government Water Resources Department is squarely against the order dated 19.03.2013 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) Nos.2262 of 1998 & 14236 of 1996. 8. The impugned order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Special Secretary to Government Water Resources Department at Page 4 of 7 // 5 // Annexure-10 records the entire sequence of events and eventually in the penultimate paragraphs records the following order:- is in till for not she due received the date of reinstatement <Whereas, the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-9) was earlier this Department on 23.12.2019 wherein she prayed for grant of back wages and other benefits from the date of award till her reinstatement in service as per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. The petitioner has also requested to allow proper scale of pay w.e.f. the date of termination i.e. 11.6.1988 i.e. 29.11.2013 by revising pay and other allowances. Whereas, Smt Dhanphul has not worked in the intermittent period of her dis-engagement and engagement, any wages/remuneration for that period. As such, Ld Presiding Officer in order dated 08.03.1996 observed/directed for reinstatement without back wages. That, as per the orders dated 19.3.2013 of Hon’ble High Court, she is entitled for the consequential benefit on reinstatement. That, in obedience to the orders of Hon’ble High Court all benefits the date of her from i.e. dated 29.11.2013 has been reinstatement allowed. Now, and considering circumstances of the case, the representation at Annexure-9 of the petitioner has been considered and in view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs the same being found devoid of merits is hereby rejected.= therefore, fact all 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties fairly submits that the rejection of the representation of the Petitioner indeed contradicts the direction dated 19.03,2013 passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 14236 of 1996 & W.P.(C). No.2262 of 1998. Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Facts scenario of the present case depicts a sorry state of affairs, the Opposite Parties have scant regards to the order of this Court and subjected the Petitioner to harassment since 1988. Despite specific direction by this Court the Opposite Parties have passed the impugned order denying the consequential benefit to the Petitioner on the ground of <no work no pay= principle and blatantly disobeyed the dictum of this Court. The casual and lackadaisical approach of the Opposite Parties by mechanically rejecting the representation of the Petitioner are deprecable. 10. Be that as it may, the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 at Annexure-10 to this Writ Petition is not sustainable in law being contrary to the direction of this Court, therefore, set aside. 11. Since uncalled for litigation has been the thrust upon the Petitioner by the Opposite Parties and made her to suffer since 1994, further deprival of the Petitioner from her rightful dues and the entitlement would cause serious injustice. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are directed to comply the order dated 19.03.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2262 of 1998 & 14236 of 1996 within a period of thirty days from receipt of this order/judgment. Failing which the Opposite Party No.1 shall initiate an inter departmental inquiry to ascertain the cause of delay in the Page 6 of 7 // 7 // implementation of the order of this court dated 19.03.2013 and fix the responsibility. In case time bound compliance of this order is not done, the Opposite Parties shall be saddle with an exemplary cost of Rs 25,000/- to be deposited with the Welfare Fund of the High Court Bar Association. 12. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 29th September, 2023 /Swarna Prava Dash, Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Sep-2023 18:12:18 Page 7 of 7