Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Another vs Manoj Kumar Sharma And Others on 1 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13301 of 2017
State of Odisha and Another .... Petitioners
Mr. M.S. Sahoo
Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D. Chaterjee, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.1
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 01.09.2021
04. 1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners (State of
Odisha) against the judgment dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the
Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT), Bhubaneswar in O.A.
No.1567 of 2011 filed by the Opposite Party No.1 (Manoj Kumar
Sharma) whereby the OAT while disposing of the original
application directed the Revenue Divisional Commissioner to pass
appropriate orders, within a period of three months, abolishing the
post which the Opposite Party No.1 was previously holding and
thereafter the Food Supplied and Consumer Welfare Department
(FSCW Department) was to pass an appropriate order appointing
Opposite Party No.1 as regular Inspector of Supplies within two
months.
2. Although there was no interim order passed by this Court
staying the impugned order of the OAT dated 6th November, 2017,
this Court permitted the State to seek adjournment before the OAT
in the contempt proceedings arising out of O.A. No.1567 of 2011.
Subsequently, on 1st August 2018, this Court stayed further
proceedings.
3. It must be mentioned here at the outset that the impugned order
of OAT is common to fifteen OAs. However, writ petitions have
been filed only in respect of three of the OAs i.e. O.A. No.1567 of
2011 filed by Manoj Kumar Sharma, O.A. No.1580 of 2011 filed
by Jayananda Majhi and O.A. No.1581 of 2011 filed by Chaitanya
Adabang. As far as last two OAs are concerned, the corresponding
writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No.6919 of 2018 and 6325 of 2018 have
already been disposed of by this Court by orders dated 28th March,
2019 and 7th November, 2019 respectively noting that the State
had already been implemented the impugned order of the OAT in
respect of those two applicants.
4. It may further be noted here that in the counter affidavit filed in
the present petition, Opposite Party No.1 has placed on record
copies of the order dated 31st March, 2017 of the Cooperation
Department, Government of Odisha abolishing the posts occupied
by five of the Applicants before the OAT thereby implementing
the impugned order of the OAT. He has also placed on record
copies of the notification dated 5th April, 2017 issued by the
Cooperation Department again abolishing the posts held by five of
the Applicants before the OAT. By a notification dated 13th
October, 2017 issued by the FSCW Department it was noted that
the posts held by five other Applicants before the OAT in their
parent Department i.e. the Forest and Environment Department
had been abolished.
5. One of the Applicants before the OAT apparently has expired.
Therefore, barring the present Opposite Party No.1, the impugned
order of the OAT has been virtually implemented in each of the
other Applicants before the OAT.
6. Even as regards the Opposite Party No.1 he is continuing in the
FSCW Department continuously since 9th August, 2007 till date. A
request has already been made by his parent Department i.e. the
Revenue Divisional Commissioner (RDC) to the Government to
abolish the post that he was holding.
7. While it could be argued that in the absence of specific
notification being issued by the Government of Odisha in terms of
Rules 20 and 21 of the Odisha Rationalization Policy of Personnel
Rules, 2007 there could not be an deemed abolition of the post
held by the Opposite Party No.1 in his parent Department and the
resultant regularization of his services in the CSFW Department, in
the present case the reality is that Opposite Party No.1 has
continued in the CSFW Department for over 14 years on
deputation. He has also been granted financial upgradation under
the RACP Scheme.
8. Consequently, while leaving the question of law raised by the
Petitioner arising out of the impugned order of the OAT open for
being decided in some other appropriate case, this Court declines
to interfere with the impugned order of the OAT.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. The order of
the OAT be implemented in respect of Opposite Party No.1 within
four weeks.
10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
S.K. Jena/P.A.
