(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India) AFR Malati Sahoo … v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 31313 of 2024 (Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India) AFR Malati Sahoo …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. Akshaya Kumar Pandey, D.N. Mishra, N. Acharya, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 5th April, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Non-renewal of agency under Mahila Pradhan Khetriya Bachat Yojana (MPKBY) is the grievance of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an authorized agent under the MPKBY as per certificate issued by the Collector, Rayagada on 15.05.2000. Her work as an agent was to collect money from persons of the area for investment in Page 1 of 15 P.O.C.T.D./P.O. Recurring Deposits Account. She was also authorized to issue receipts for the money received and to obtain Pass Books on behalf of investors from the Post Office to deliver to them. Her area of work was within Therubali and she was attached with Rayagada S.F.S.P.O., Therubali S.P.O. Her agency was renewed each year since 2000, the last such renewal being due to expire on 26.06.2024. Basing on her application for renewal, the District Small Savings and Financial Inclusion Officer, Rayagada (opposite party No.4) wrote to the Sub-Postmaster, Sugar Factory, S.O., Rayagada to allow the petitioner to transact her business at the Sub-Office till 15.07.2023 on the ground that her application for renewal was under process. The petitioner claims to have submitted further application on 06.05.2024 for renewal of her agency but it was not accepted by opposite party No.4 on the ground that her husband was found to be working as GDS Packer in the Postal Department and his name had been provided as „Ramesh Chandra Sahoo‟ instead of „Ramakanta Sahoo‟. She therefore, submitted a representation to the Collector, Rayagada on 05.07.2024 ventilating her grievance. Since no Page 2 of 15 action was taken, she again submitted a representation before the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 & 4 by registered post on 06.09.2024. Upon receiving such representation, the ADM, Rayagada, vide letter dated 27.09.2024 intimated her that clarification regarding renewal of her agency is pending with the Government and renewal would be considered upon receipt of clarification. The petitioner further claims to have submitted affidavit long time ago regarding mismatch of her husband‟s name in the certificate and again submitted an affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Rayagada stating that the names „Ramesh Chandra Sahoo‟ and „Ramakanta Sahoo‟ refer to one and the same person, i.e., her husband. 2.1 The petitioner, thereafter approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 27465 of 2024. During pendency of the writ application, the Collector, vide order dated 25.11.2024 terminated her agency on the ground that near relatives of the GDS are not eligible for appointment as Small Saving Agents under MPKBY, there was deliberate suppression of facts in the affidavit submitted before the appointing authority since initiation of agency regarding name of the husband of the Page 3 of 15 petitioner and she had not applied for renewal of her agency 45 days prior to expiry of the agency. In view of the above intimation, the petitioner withdrew the above mentioned writ application with liberty to file better application. Hence, the present writ application. 3. According to the petitioner, as per the MPKBY Rules, near relatives of the employees of the Department are not eligible to be engaged as agents but the petitioner‟s husband, being a Packer on adhoc basis, cannot be treated as a regular employee. As such, said clause is not applicable to the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has collected huge amount to the tune of Rs.11,77,50,000/- for the Department of Posts during the period from July, 2023 to June, 2024. Because of non-renewal of agency from June, 2024 to September, 2024 she has failed to deposit Rs.32,90,000/- which is a direct loss to the State exchequer. On such facts, the petitioner has filed this writ application with prayer to quash the order of termination and for a direction to the authorities to restore her licence. Page 4 of 15 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No.4 reiterating the facts mentioned in the impugned order of termination. It is specifically stated that the husband of the petitioner, Ramakanta Sahoo is employed as GDS in the same Post Office which is against the Rule as well as vitiates the principles of fairness among agents. Further, the petitioner had not applied for renewal of her agency 45 days prior to its expiry. She had deliberately suppressed the fact that her husband‟s name of Ramakanta Sahoo and instead she had been providing his name is Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, which is not an inadvertent error. It is further stated that MPKBY agency is subject to renewal based on proper conduct and performance to the satisfaction of the appointing authority. The petitioner, by deliberate suppression of facts has breached the trust of the Government. The petitioner never submitted the application on 06.05.2024 and in any case, it was addressed to the DSSO and not the appointing authority. On the other hand, her grievance submitted before the Collector on 05.08.2024
Decision
was disposed of appropriately. The petitioner further misquoted the letter dated 27.09.2024 of the ADM which was not a Page 5 of 15 clarification regarding renewal of her agency but was a case of renewal of her certificate of authority. Subsequently, the Finance Department in its letter dated 01.11.2024 has issued clarification that her certificate was valid till 26.06.2024 and in view of absence of any application for renewal it is presumed that said certificate has lapsed w.e.f. 27.06.2024. That apart, repeated mention of fake name of her husband in relevant papers including affidavit continuously for last 23 years is an act of deliberate suppression of facts. The petitioner also submitted another affidavit purportedly by her husband but by jumbling the words therein. With regard to the amount of money collected from the investors it is stated that the same was without any authority and she has not deposited the said amount, which is again a breach of duty. As regards the contention that her husband not being a regular employee it is stated that the same is inconsequential as he is in a position to influence the depositors which violates the principle of fairness. 5. Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. Page 6 of 15 6. Mr. Pandey would argue that the stand taken by the State that the petitioner never applied for renewal is completely wrong and contrary to letter dated 26.06.2023 of the opposite party No.4 as well as letter dated 27.09.2024. He further argues that as per the MPKBY Rules, clause-3 specifically mentions about near relatives of the employees of Department of Posts as being ineligible for appointment as agents or renewal of their existing agency, but the same is not applicable to the petitioner as her husband is not a permanent/regular employee of the Department of Posts but is a GDS (Packer). As regards the allegation of suppression of facts, Mr. Pandey would submit that after one year of engagement as agent the petitioner having come to know about the mistake regarding her husband‟s name, which was a typographical error, she submitted repeated representations to the authorities to correct the name and finally submitted an affidavit. Her husband also submitted such affidavit. Mr. Pandey further relies upon a judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Union of India vs. K. Valsala Kumari1, wherein it was held that GDS is 1 O.P. (CAT) No. 9 of 2015 : 2020:KER:15815 Page 7 of 15 outside the Civil Service of the Union. Mr. Pandey therefore, submits that the grounds taken by the authorities not renewing her agency is therefore, bad in law. 7. Mr. Routray, learned State Counsel would argue that the petitioner never submitted her application for renewal before expiry of the certificate. She submitted application after expiry of the period, i.e. on 05.09.2024, which was replied to. Secondly, she is guilty of suppression of facts at the time of appointment as agent and never submitted any application to correct the so called mistake. The affidavit being self-serving in nature cannot be considered. According to Mr. Routray, this amounts to playing fraud with the Government. He further argues that the deliberate suppression of name of her husband was apparently because of the restriction imposed by the Rules for engagement of agents of near relatives of employees of the Department of Posts. The plea that the petitioner‟s husband is not a regular employee is immaterial. 8. The petitioner‟s application for renewal having been rejected, inter alia, on the ground of deliberate suppression of facts, it would be apposite to deal with the same at first. The Page 8 of 15 petitioner was appointed as an Agent and a certificate was issued in her favour on 15.05.2000. Perusal of the certificate, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ application, reveals that she has described herself as „w/o- Ramesh Ch. Sahoo‟. It has not been disputed that her husband‟s name is in fact „Ramakanta Sahoo‟, though the petitioner claims that „Ramesh‟ is the nick name of Ramakanta. The petitioner claims to have brought the above mistake, which is said to be typographical in nature, to the notice of the authorities on multiple occasions. Not a single such letter/application/affidavit is enclosed to the writ application nor the dates on which the same were submitted have been stated. An affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Rayagada on 08.10.2024 which is after the dispute arose, is pressed into service. Perusal of the affidavit, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-7, reveals that as per the Aadhar Card and PAN Card of her husband, his name is „Ramakanta Sahoo‟ but both „Ramesh Chandra Sahoo‟ and „Ramakanta Sahoo‟ refer to the same person. This affidavit, as already stated, was sworn on 08.10.2024 for the purpose of being Page 9 of 15 submitted before the concerned authorities as conclusive proof of both names of her husband. There being no other proof of submission of application by the petitioner in this regard or to correct the name of her husband in the certificate, it is difficult to accept the affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate. Significantly, the original certificate bears an endorsement by the Collector that it is renewed up to 19.06.2010. Said endorsement was made on 23.06.2009. Thus, even on 23.06.2009 the same certificate was renewed containing the name „Ramesh Chandra Sahoo‟. The petitioner‟s claim of seeking correction of the name is not acceptable. Save and except the affidavit no other material is placed to show that Ramakanta Sahoo is also known by the name Ramesh Chandra Sahoo. Once it is held that the name was wrongly portrayed, it would obviously amount to misrepresentation, if not suppression per se, but then, as argued by learned State Counsel, the petitioner had deliberately done so keeping in view the bar in the Rules for near relatives of Department of Posts to be appointed as agents. Her husband was working as GDS (Packer). In the judgment cited by Mr. Pandey it has been held Page 10 of 15 that GDS does not hold a civil post under the Union. On facts, this Court finds the cited case inapplicable to the present case for the reason that whether the person is a regular employee or not cannot have any bearing as the very purpose of inserting such clause is obviously to ensure complete transparency and fairness and to place all the agents on a level playing field. A person already employed, even if temporarily can still be in a position to influence the investors at the behest of his or her relatives, who is appointed as an agent. Rule 3(h) of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 defines “Members of the family” and is reproduced herein below: “(h) "Members of the family in relation to a Gramin Dak Sevak includes (i) the wife, child or step child of such Sevak, whether residing with him or not, and in relation to a Sevak who is a woman, the husband residing with her and dependent on her; and (ii) any other person related, whether by blood or by marriage to such Sevak or to such Sevaks’ wife or husband and wholly dependent on such Sevak, but does not, include a wife or husband legally separated from such Sevak or a child or step child who is no longer in any way dependent upon such Sevak or of whose custody the Sevak has been deprived by any law; only widow and dependent Daughter-in law” Page 11 of 15 9. Rule-3.A(v) provides that a Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union and Rule 3.A(vi) provides that a Sevak shall not claim to be at par with the Central Government employees. Coming to MPKBY Rules, the provision relating to eligibility provides that near relatives of the employees of Department of Posts and National Savings Institute are not eligible for appointment as agents or renewal of their existing agency under MPKBY. On a conjoint reading of aforequoted Rules, it is evident that GDS, though not holding a Civil post, yet is to be treated as an employee of the Department as long as his engagement as such subsists. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UPSC v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup, (2008) 11 SCC 10, wherein it was observed as follows: “14. The term “employee” is not defined in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, nor is it defined in the advertisement of upsc. The ordinary meaning of “employee” is any person employed on salary or wage by an employer. When is a contract of employment, the person employed is the employee and the person employing is the employer. In the absence of any restrictive definition, the word “employee” would include both permanent or temporary, regular or short term, contractual or ad hoc. Therefore, all persons employed by MCD, whether permanent or contractual [ Emphasis added] will be “employees of MCD.” there Page 12 of 15 10. The word „employee‟ used in the MPKBY Rules does not qualify the same as permanent employee only. According to the considered view of this Court, the term is of wide import and amplitude to include all persons engaged by the Department for its work for the time being. The argument advanced by Mr. Pandey to the contrary is therefore, not tenable. 11. In view of the above finding, the other finding that there is no proof of the petitioner having sought correction of the name of her husband in the certificate assumes great significance and persuades this Court to hold that the same amounts to deliberate suppression of facts. 12. Under such circumstances, it would be treated as an act of fraud and in view of the oft-repeated proposition that „fraud and justice never dwell together‟, she would be not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The affidavit sworn by her before the Executive Magistrate belatedly is nothing but a self- serving document that cannot undo the wrong committed for as long as 23 years. Page 13 of 15 13. Another aspect that needs consideration is that the petitioner‟s application for renewal, which was responded to by the opposite party No.4 by letter dated 26.06.2023 was for the previous period i.e. 27.06.2023 to 26.06.2024. This period appears to have been renewed. There is no material to show that any application for renewal was submitted 45 days prior to the date of expiry i.e., 26.06.2024. The petitioner appears to have applied on 05.09.2024, by which time the agency had already lapsed for non-renewal. By letter dated 27.09.2024, the ADM simply informed that the question of renewal of her agency would be considered upon receipt of clarification from the Finance Department. Under such circumstances, if the Finance Department would have clarified in her favour, then the agency may have been deemed to be renewed from 27.06.2024. However, the Finance Department, taking note of the suppression of facts, decided otherwise. 14. From what has been narrated hereinabove, the Finance Department cannot be faulted with for taking the decision not to accept the application for renewal of the petitioner. Page 14 of 15 15. Another aspect that needs consideration of this Court and that too with some concern, is that despite non- renewal of the agency, the petitioner on her own admission has held on to huge amount of money i.e., to the tune of Rs.32,90,000 of the depositors without depositing the same in the Department. The petitioner claims to have been prevented in this regard by the Department, which is hardly believable. 16. From a conspectus of the analysis of facts, law and discussion made, this Court finds no reason to be persuaded to interfere with the impugned order of the Collector in not renewing the agency of the petitioner. 17. In the result, the writ application fails and is therefore, dismissed. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 5th April, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Apr-2025 14:54:05 Page 15 of 15