Bhagirathi Majhi vs Commandant General
2023 Latest Caselaw 9159 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          CONTC No.2505 of 2023

Bhagirathi Majhi                   .....                                   Petitioner
                                                      Mr.S.B. Mohanty, Advocate
                                   Vs.
Commandant General, Home           .....              Opposite Parties/Contemnors
Guards & Fire Service,
Buxibazar & Ors.
                                                                  Mr.G.N. Rout,ASC

                    CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                          ORDER

11.08.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

01.

2. Learned Counsel for the parties are present.

3. Mr.S.B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, a specific direction was given by the coordinate Bench to the Opposite Party No.2 to do the needful for re-appointment/ re-engage the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2 with a certified copy of the said order. Mr. Mohanty submits, further direction was given to the Opposite Party No.2 to do well to carry out the exercise and reappoint/ re-engage the Petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, instead of doing so, the authority concerned passed the order dated 28.02.2023 as if there was a direction to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner, though it was never so directed by the coordinate Bench.

4. In response to the said submission made by Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rout, learned ASC draws attention of this Court to paragraph no.16 of the said judgment

which is extracted below:

"In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the services of the petitioners should have been renewed as has been done in case of many other similarly situated employees. Particularly, those who are in the list of 150 Home Guard volunteers. Therefore, the memo No.5787 dated 02.06.2015 passed by the Commandant General Home Guard, Odisha is unsustainable in law in view of police circular 2 of 2016 and order passed by this Court in the W.P.(C) No.15889 of 2015 and accordingly the same is hereby quashed.

Further, it is directed that the case of the petitioner be considered in the light of the order passed by a Coordinate bench and in view of the police circular order 2 of 2016 and the petitioners subject to availability of vacancies shall be given appointment immediately by Commandant General Home Guard, Rayagada, opposite party No.2. The petitioners are directed to approach the opposite party No.1 with a certified copy of this order. In the event, the petitioner's approach the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 shall do well to carry out the exercise and the reappoint/reengage the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter."

(Emphasis Supplied)

5. Mr. Rout submits, though vide the said order the coordinate Bench directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 with a certified copy of the said order, again it has been ordered to approach the Opposite Party No.2 and such direction was conditional i.e. subject to availability of vacancies. He further submits, though by mistake the authority concerned, in the first paragraph of the said order dated 28.02.2023, wrongly mentioned as to disposal of the representation

of the Petitioner but in the concluding paragraph the issue has been dealt with by the Authority concerned as has been directed vide judgment dated 23.12.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench. He further submit, since there is a direction by the coordinate Bench that case of the Petitioner be considered in the light of the order passed by the coordinate Bench and in terms of the Police Circular Order 2 of 2016 and the Petitioner shall be given appointment subject to availability of vacancies, the authority concerned rightly communicated to the Petitioner that when the Government create any post in the rank of HGs, the case of the Petitioner will be considered in the next recruitment drive when vacancy will arise in the rank of Home Guard in Rayagada District as per his position in the selection list. Hence, the order passed by the coordinate Bench has already been worked out and there is no willful or intentional flouting of the direction given by the coordinate Bench, as has been falsely alleged in the contempt Petition.

6. Mr. Mohanty submits, there is a typographical error in the concluding paragraph of the said judgment as to approaching the Opposite Party No.1, instead of Opposite Party No.2. Further, there are some ambiguities with regard to direction given by the coordinate Bench for reappointment /reengagement of the Petitioner.

7. He prays to keep the present contempt proceeding pending so that his client would be able to approach the coordinate Bench for modification/clarification of the said order.

8. However, in view of the submission made by Mr. Rout, so also order passed by the authority concerned in term of direction given by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3715 of 2016, which has already been worked out in terms of the observation given by the coordinate

Bench, the contempt proceeding stands dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench for modification/clarification of the order, if so advised.

(S.K.MISHRA) JUDGE Banita

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA