Ghasi Hantal vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8578 Ori

                                        1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                   W.P.(C) No.12998 OF 2021

Ghasi Hantal                                 .....                       Petitioner

                                                     Mr. R.N. Prusty, Advocate
                                   Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                       .....              Opposite parties

                                                             Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA




            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                           ORDER

16.08.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. R.N. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service with all the consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. He further seeks to quash the order dated 29.10.1991 under Annexure-5 declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable in the eye of law. In alternative the petitioner seeks direction to the opposite parties to pay the differential arrear salary to him from the date of reversion till.

Mr. R.N. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similarly situated persons,

namely, Guru Paraja and Abhaya Kumar Das, had approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by filing O.A. No.2304 of 1998 and the Tribunal disposed of the said case vide order dated 30.07.1999 directing the opposite parties to reinstate them in their former regular posts, as per their appointment and grant all consequential benefits including the salary by deducting the amount already paid as daily wages. He also contended that in similar circumstances the Tribunal in Kartik Khosla v. State of Orissa (O.A. No.137(C) of 1998 disposed of on 15.07.2011) also directed that the petitioner therein is entitled to the minimum wages which must be ensured. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands on the same footing, he may be granted the said benefit.

Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that if the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in Guru Paraja and Kartik Khosla (supra), direction may be issued to the authority to consider his case in the light of the said cases.

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court permits the petitioner to file a fresh representation enclosing the judgment passed by the Tribunal in Guru Paraja (supra) in O.A. No.2304 of 1998 in Annexure-6 and Kartik Khosla (supra) in O.A. No.137 (C) of 1998 in Annexure-7 within a period of two weeks from today

ventilating his grievances before the authority. In the event the petitioner files such representation enclosing the aforesaid judgments along with this order, the authority shall consider and pass appropriate order within a period of three months thereafter.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE