The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.1079 of 2019 Kalendri Bagh & Ors. …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 13.10.2022 Order No 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. It is submitted that Mr. Prahallad Sahu has entered appearance for the Petitioners on 03.10.2021. The acknowledgement issued by the Registry be kept on record. 3. Heard Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “In view of the above facts and circumstances stated above in Para 6 of the Original Application the applicants pray for the following reliefs:- i) That the Respondents especially Respondent No. 3 may be directed to engage the retrenched applicants in Upper Kolab Irrigation Project, Bariniput, dist. Koraput on the basis of their seniority in the created vacant posts along with 509 NMRS employees those are party in T.A. No.47/93 and 54/93. And also 20 NMRS employees recently re engaged vide order No.617 dt.19.2.2019 in view of order of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa passed in W.P. (c) No.17806/2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by order dt.12.7.2018 disposed of SLP (c) No.20440/2018. ii) The Respondents especially Respondent No.3 may be directed not to fill up the vacant post created in Upper Kolab Irrigation Project, Bariniput, Dist. Koraput by bringing persons from other Division and fill up the same from list of retrenched // 2 // employees from Upper Kolab Irrigation Project, Bariniput, dist. Koraput. iii) To pass any such order or orders as deem fit and proper.” 5. It is submitted that even though the Petitioners were senior to many of the NMR working in the Establishment of Opp. Party No. 3, but they were retrenched without following their seniority. 6. It is submitted that on being so retrenched the Petitioners approached the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1582(C) of 2007 and learned Tribunal vide order dtd.12.08.2011 while disposing the matter passed the following order:- “Considering the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties, respondent authorities more particularly respondent No. 3 and also Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer are directed to consider the case of the applicants, who are retrenched N.M.R. workers, for their re engagement on the basis of their seniority in the list of retrenched N.M.R. workers, taking into account their date of initial engagement, as and when any steps shall be taken for their re-engagement as N.M.R. employees. It need not be said that as and when any step shall be taken by the respondent authorities for bringing over such re-engaged N.M.R. workers to work charged establishment and thereafter to the wages establishment, the applicants case shall also be considered for such engagement taking into account the seniority of the applicants as the retrenched N.M.R. employees.” 7. It is submitted that basing on the order passed by the learned Tribunal, O.P. No. 3 vide his letter dtd.03.12.2011 and 22.03.2012 though requested O.P. No. 2 to reconsider the case of the Petitioners for their reengagement on the ground that NMRs juniors to the Petitioners were not only allowed to continue but also brought over to the Work Charged Estblishment, but subsequently Page 2 of 4 // 3 // vide another order passed on 12.08.2011 the claim of the Petitioners was rejected by the O.P. No. 2 with the observation that as and when vacancy will arise, their cases will be considered. 8. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in a similar issue and while dealing with the matter Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dt.12.07.2018 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 20440 of 2018 has held as follows:- “So long as the juniors to the party-respondents are retained as N.M.R., the State is bound to respect the seniority in the NMR category.” 9. It is accordingly submitted that in view of such observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the admitted fact that the Petitioners are senior to the many of the Juniors, who were continuing in the office of the O.P. No. 3, they are entitled for their reengagement. Accordingly, Mr. Sahu submitted that let a direction be issued to the O.P. No. 1 to take a decision on their claim in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above noted cases. 10. Mr. Mishra, learned AGA has got no serious objection to such course of action. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioners though are seniors to many of the NMRs, but they are retrenched and the said order of retrenchment was challenged before the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1582(C) of 2007. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal though it was intimated that the Petitioners were senior to many of the NMRs, who were not only allowed to continue, but also brought over to the Work Page 3 of 4 // 4 // Charged Establishment, but the claim of the Petitioners for their reengagement was rejected by the self same O.P. No. 3. 11. Taking into account the nature of grievance raised and relying on the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court while disposing the writ Petition, directs the O.P. No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim for their reengagement taking into account the communications issued by the O.P. No. 3 on 03.10.2011 under Annexure-3 on 22.03.2012 under Annexure-4 as well as the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited (supra). 12. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such reconsideration if it is found that the Petitioners are eligible for their reengagement, necessary orders be passed in that regard within the aforesaid time period. 13. The writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Page 4 of 4