Orissa High Court
Rabi Chandra Sahoo vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11131 of 2020
Rabi Chandra Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Mr.B.Barik, Advocate
Vs.
State of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. G.N.Rout, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
12.04.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
02.
2. The Petitioner being a land looser person, in terms of the
Scheme floated by the State Government, was appointed as NMR
on 01.10.1981 in the Samal Barrage Project. Subsequently he was
brought over to work charged establishment with effect from
02.09.1993. However, he was wrongly retrenched on the plea of
surplus on payment of retrenchment compensation vide Order dated
23.03.2002, though he was appointed being a land looser person and
was entitled to be appointed on regular basis. Protesting such action
of the employer, the Petitioner gave representation and claimed
regular appointment w.e.f the date of his initial appointment i.e. on
01.10.1981.
3. After realizing the mistake, the Opposite Parties withdrew the
retrenchment order and took back the Petitioner into service as a
work charged employee vide order dated 21.07.2012 and he was
asked to refund the money paid to him towards retrenchment
compensation, which he did. While continuing as such, he submitted
an application before the Opposite Party No.4 on 22.11.2019 with a
prayer to regularize the period from 23.03.2002 to 21.07.2012 i.e.
the period of his dis-engagement till the date of his reinstatement in
service and to grant all financial benefits as a regular employee of
the establishment .
4. Because of inaction of the authority to consider the said
representation as at Annexure-6, the Petitioner has approached this
Court with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to regularize his
disengagement period i.e. from 23.03.2002 to 21.07.2012 with all
financial benefits, including promotion and all other benefits, which
have been granted to his counterparts.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, similarly placed
employees approached the Administrative Tribunal, so also this
Court and case of the Petitioner is covered by the Judgment of this
Court in case of Madan Chandra Nayak v. Principal Secretary to
Government of Orissa, Water Resources Deptt. And Others,
(W.P.(C) No.6277 of 2014 disposed of on 19.04.2022).
6. Mr.Barik, learned Counsel submits, the Writ Petition may be
disposed of directing the authority concerned to dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-6) in
the light of the aforesaid judgment.
7. Mr.Rout, learned ASC for the State has no objection to the
said prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of directing
the Executive Engineer, Lower Indra Canal Division, Khariar
(Opposite Party No.4) to consider the representation of the
Petitioner dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-6) in the light of the
judgment passed by this Court in Madan Chandra Nayak (Supra)
and pass appropriate Order in accordance with law, as early as
possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of
production of the certified copy of this Order.
9. The Petitioner is directed to supply a copy of the Writ Petition
with annexures to the Opposite Party No.4 along with the certified
copy of this Order enabling him to do the needful, as directed.
10. Urgent certified copy of this Order be issued on proper
application as per Rules.
(S.K.MISHRA)
JUDGE
Banita
