Orissa High Court
Madan Mohan Panda vs State Of Odisha And Others on 17 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 4321 of 2010
Madan Mohan Panda ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Behera, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
17.10.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
02.
2. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. S. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for
the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following
relief:-
"Under the circumstances it is humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to set aside
the undertaking furnished by the applicant in Annexure-
And further be pleased direct regularization of services of
the applicant retrospectively.
And also be pleased to direct the authorities to consider
the case of applicant for his promotion to the post of
Forester from the date of his juniors marched over him;
And also further be pleased to count the entire period
from the date of joining the post as qualifying period for
the purpose of pension and other service benefits;
And further also be pleased to direct for grant of annual
increments and other service benefits within the time
framed;
And/Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble
Tribunal deems fit and proper in this case;
And allow this original application with cost."
4. Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2005 passed by the tribunal
in O.A. No. 655 of 2003, the service of the petitioner has to be
regularized. But getting information from the Government
Pleader, the Divisional Forest Officer, Angul imposed certain
conditions, such as, (i) to clear the recruitment test, (ii) no claim
on salary and dues for the period of past service and (iii) service
will be terminated if the petitioner fails to clear the test and, as
such, the petitioner has to furnish an undertaking to that effect. It
is contended that no such condition has been stipulated by the
tribunal while disposing of the original application. But after
obtaining of the information from the Government Pleader, such
condition has been imposed. It is contended that the petitioner has
already furnished an undertaking on 09.03.2002. Thereafter, on
the very same day the petitioner submitted his joining report along
with medical fitness certificate and was posted at Lembutalia-I
Beat under Angul Forest Division on 25.03.2006 and, as such, the
petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Forester on
06.12.2013. It is contended that since there was no direction of the
tribunal with regard to furnishing the undertaking but the DFO put
the condition to furnish such undertaking and in compliance
thereof the petitioner has furnished the undertaking, the same
cannot sustain in the eye of law.
5. Mr. S. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-Opposite Parties contended that while
implementing the order of the tribunal, the DFO, Angul has raised
certain conditions, which the petitioner has complied by
furnishing the undertaking and joined in the post. Once the
petitioner has acted upon the condition stipulated by the authority
by furnishing the undertaking, now he cannot turn around and, as
such, he is bound by such terms and conditions, in view of the
principles of estoppel. It is contended that the petitioner is not
entitled to get the benefits, as claimed in the writ petition.
Consequentially, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court finds that the tribunal has disposed
of the common judgment by directing the opposite parties for
regular appointment of the petitioner through regular process of
selection as a departmental candidate. But opposite party no.3
sought legal information from the Government Pleader, Angul on
10.10.2005 and after obtaining legal opinion, opposite party no.3
allowed the petitioner to continue as Forest Guard with stipulation,
as mentioned above and by furnishing an undertaking, the
petitioner has already accepted such condition. As such, after
furnishing such undertaking, the petitioner has already joined in
service and also got promotion in the meantime. Therefore,
regularization of the petitioner being subject to furnishing
undertaking by him, now it cannot be said that the same was not
directed by the tribunal and the DFO, Angul has imposed such
condition of furnishing undertaking for joining in the service.
Once the petitioner was acted on the basis of the undertaking
furnished by him, now he is estopped from making a prayer not to
act upon the same. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner
cannot be acceded to.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and
the same is hereby dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Ashok
