The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Biswanath Roul and others W.P.(C) 38789 of 2020 …. Mr.G.R, Sethi, Advocate Petitioner Order No. 06. Union of India and others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Parhi, D.S.G.I. Ms.Babita Sahoo, C.G.C. Mr.P.S.Nayak, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos. 2 to 4 CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 20.02.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr.P.S.Nayak, learned counsel appearing for Indian Institute of Mass Communication. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the order passed by the Opposite Parties in rejecting the claim of the Petitioners for regularisation of their services with effect from their initial date of appointment.. 4. On perusal of the contents of the Writ Petition, it is found that the Indian Institutive of Mass Communication is a registered society which was promoted by the Government of India by Ministry of Information and Broad Casting. The Petitioners and similarly other persons were engaged as DLR in different Group-D post in the aforesaid institution. Such employees are continued to discharge their duties in the Opposite Party No.1 institution and while working as such, their wages have been revised and enhanced from time to time // 2 // as reflected in the body of the Writ Petition. While continuing as such, the Petitioners approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.24758 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 31.07.2017 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to regularize the services of the Petitioners within a period of three months. The aforesaid order was assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) Diary No.35963 of 2017 which was dismissed on 05.01.2018. As such the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition attained finality. 5. Due to non-compliance of the aforesaid order the Petitioners filed two Contempt Petitions bearing CONTC No.465 of 2018 and CONTC No.1731 of 2018. During pendency of the second Contempt Petition, the services of the Petitioners as well as similarly situated other persons have been regularized as Multi Tasking Staffs (MTS) vide order dated 15.01.2019 with effect from 31.07.2017. Therefore, it is not disputed that the Petitioners are the regular employees with effect from 31.07.2017. However being aggrieved by the order passed by Opposite Party No.1 for regularization of service of the Petitioners with effect from 31.07.2017, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No.13434 of 2020 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 03.06.2020 by a coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to consider the representation of the Petitioners within a period of one and half months in the manner as has been directed in the order dated 03.06.2020. Thereafter, the representation having been rejected by the authority vide order dated 01.12.2020 under Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 6. Mr.P.S.Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 and Ms,Babita Sahoo, learned C.G.C. along with // 3 // Mr.P.K.Parhi, learned D.S.G.I. at the outset raised an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Writ Petition. In course of their argument, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties submitted that the Petitioners are regular employees under Opposite Party No.1. As such the Petitioners are required to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal instead of this Court. In support of their contention, they also referred to the judgment in L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 more particularly they referred to Paragraph-94 of the aforesaid judgment. They also referred to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2124 of 2014 which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2024 thereby granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. 7. On perusal of the W.P.(C) No.2124 of 2014 it appears that the very same Institution i.e. Indian Institute of Mass Communication which is Opposite Parties in the said case, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Kerala High Court in W.P.(C) No.28756 of 2023 submitted that in respect of the very same institution i.e. Indian Institute of Mass Communication. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court vide judgment dated 11.09.023 has categorically held that the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the service dispute in respect of the employees of IIMC. Accordingly, it was submitted by the leaned counsel for the Opposite Parties that the Writ Petition preferred by the Petitioners is not maintainable before this Court as an alternative and efficacious remedy has been provided in shape of Central Administrative Tribunal. They also submitted that IIMC has also been notified by the Central Government conferring // 4 // jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners on the other hand referred to a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Kamalakanta Sahoo and others vs. State of Orissa and others in W.P.(C) No.9568 of 2010 disposed of by a judgment dated 11.04.2014. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that a coordinate Bench while answering to the objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate such issue. Finally, by referring to the judgment in Promotee Telecom engineers Forum and others has come to a conclusion that even though the forum is available to challenge the impugned order by approaching Tribunal in the name of fresh cause of action, this Court is not inclined to relegate the Petitioners to approach the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to assail a wrong order while disposing the representation in the earlier Writ Petition. Accordingly learned coordinate Bench has held that the Writ Petition was maintainable. 9. Considering such submissions, this Court directs the Registry of this Court to transfer the Writ Petition to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. Upon receipt of the records, the Registry of the Central Administrative Tribunal shall do the needful and place the matter before the assigned Bench for taking up the matter in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge // 5 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Feb-2024 11:02:21