Minaketana Nag vs Re-Settlement And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10537 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CONTC (CPC) No. 1615 of 1994

            Minaketana Nag                     ....                                 Petitioner


                                                -Versus -
            Re-Settlement and Rehabilitation ....                         Opposite Parties
            Officer, Upper Indravatai
            Project-cum-ADM, Khatiguda,
            Nawarangpur & Ors.
                                                               Mr. M.K. Balabantaray,
                                                         Standing Counsel for the State
                                                    Ms. Sarita Maharana, Advocate for
                                                                                OHPC
                            CORAM:
                            DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                            ORDER

01.10.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 01 2. As prayed for by Mr. Rajib Rath, learned counsel, his appearance on behalf of the petitioner is ignored.

3. Ms. Sarita Maharana, learned counsel states that she has entered appearance on behalf of OHPC and has already filed vakalatnama before the Registry, which may be tagged to this case.

4. The petitioner has filed this application against non- compliance of order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 1615 (C) of 1994.

5. A show cause affidavit has been filed stating inter alia that the petitioner was found absent from duty and, therefore, he could not be given re-appointment order as per the judgment of the tribunal. So also the petitioner had never made any representation to opposite party no.1 for re- appointment. It is further stated that the petitioner having remained absent from his duty w.e.f. 01.04.1994, all of a sudden he appeared on 26.04.1994 and forcibly tried to sign the attendance register from the back date, which was disallowed by Asst. Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Officer. Thereby, he abused such officer. Consequentially, for misbehavior of the petitioner, an FIR was lodged in Khatiguda P.S. on 26.04.1994 under Sections 294 and 448, IPC, pursuant to which he was arrested and enlarged on bail.

6. In view of such position, since petitioner had remained absent from duty, his case should not have been considered for giving re-appointment, as claimed by him. That apart, the petitioner, as it appears, has already attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter.

7. The contempt proceeding is accordingly dropped.

GDS                                                (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
                                                        Judge