Ramakanta Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2142 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.8604 of 2022

            Ramakanta Pradhan                         ....             Petitioner
                                                      Mr. Amitav Das, Advocate

                                         -versus-

            State of Odisha and others               ....       Opposite Parties
                                                    Mr. P.C. Das, ASC for State

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

07.04.2022 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner thereby challenging the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt., Commerce & Transport- Opposite Party No.1.

4. As it appears from the order, pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 23.06.2021 passed in WPC(OAC) No.1214 of 2016 (Ramakanta Pradhan vs. State of Odisha & Others), petitioner had approached the Authority by filing a comprehensive representation. There was a specific direction in the said writ petition to the effect that taking into consideration certain guidelines as has been laid down in order dated 23.06.2016, the representation was to be considered and disposed of. However, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on 09.07.2021 by the Authority.

// 2 //

5. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that F.A.- cum-Special Secretary to Govt.-Opposite Party No.1 has although discussed the principle, but it appears that the fact of the present case has not been discussed and it has not been stated as to how the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit claimed by him. However, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on certain judgments submits that the Petitioner belong to a separate category. The category the Petitioner belongs to cannot be transferred under the U.R. category. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the Authority be directed to consider the matter in the light of the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner as well as earlier direction of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the Authority has not committed any illegality by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and rejecting the same with reason. However, he also admits that facts have not been analyzed in the impugned order and it has also not been stated as to how the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit.

7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 is not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. Further it is open for the opposite party no.1 to decide whether hearing the affected parties required or not and in the event the same is required they may be noticed. Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to complete the entire

// 3 //

exercise within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application.

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge U.K.Sahoo