Orissa High Court
Chatrubhuja Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 5 December, 2023
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.38449 of 2023
Chatrubhuja Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Das, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 05.12.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ
Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the
following prayer :
"It is therefore prayed that your lordship may
graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue
the Rule NISI calling upon the opp. Party to show cause as to
why the order dated 11.10.2023 under Annexure- by Opp.
Party No.1 shall not be quashed and they shall not be directed
to regularize the service of the petitioner in terms of ratio
decided in Chandra Nandi Vrs State of Odisha reported in
2014 (I) OLR 734 and to grant pensionary benefit to the
petitioner.
If the opp. Parties failed to show cause or show
insufficient cause then the Rule be made absolute;
And pass any other order(s), direction(s) as would deem
fit and proper for the interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that the
Petitioner was initially appointed at Semi Skilled Mullia on NMR basis
under the Rengali Right Canal Division No.2, Dhenkanal during the
// 2 //
year 1985-1986. Pursuant to a decision taken by the Engineer-in-Chief,
Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the Petitioner was brought
over to the work charged establishment on 20.07.2009 along with many
similarly situated NMR employees who were engaged prior to the
cutoff date of the year 1993. As such the Petitioner was brought over to
the work charged establishment w.e.f. 01.03.2009. Accordingly, the
Petitioner joined in the work charged establishment on 31.09.2009
pursuant to the letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Rengali Right
Canal Division No.II, Dhenkanal. Subject to the terms and conditions as
mentioned in the said appointment letter.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument
submitted that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing a
writ application bearing WPC(OA) No.1734 of 2019, which was
disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner in
accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of
communication of the order passed in that writ application by taking
into consideration the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2022 in
W.P.(C) No.11686 of 2022 (Ramachandra Nayak vs. State of Odisha
& ors.). After disposal of the above noted earlier writ application, the
Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party
No.1 by a detailed order dated 11.10.2023 under Annexure-1 to the writ
application rejected the representation of the Petitioner and denied any
financial benefits to the Petitioner with a retrospective effect. Being
aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties in rejecting the
representation of the Petitioner the Petitioner approached this Court by
filing the present writ application.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument
submitted that the impugned rejection order dated 11.10.2023 under
Annexure-1 is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the Opposite Party No.1
has not considered the case keeping in view the letter and spirit of the
// 3 //
order passed by this Court on 08.09.2023. He contended that there was
a specific direction by this Court to consider the case of the Petitioner in
the light of the order dated 27.07.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.11686 of
2022. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
Opposite Party No.1 while considering the representation of the
Petitioner has distinguished the order dated 27.07.2022 by treating an
artificial distinction by referring to the prayer portion of the earlier writ
application filed by the petitioner. He also contended that the substance
of both the writ applications were same, however, the prayer in the
earlier writ application was not properly drafted and the same was be
different than the prayer that was involved in the W.P.(C) No.11686 of
2022. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the representation of the Petitioner has not been
considered in its proper prospective and by taking into consideration the
order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand
contended that pursuant to order dated 08.09.2023 passed in the earlier
writ application bearing WPC(OA) No.1734 of 2019, the Opposite
Party No.1 has considered the representation of the Petitioner. He
contended that during such consideration, the Opposite Party No.1
found that the prayers made in both the writ applications are distinct
and separate. Therefore, the law laid down by this Court in
Ramachandra Nayak vs. State of Odisha & ors. (W.P.(C) No.11686 of
2022) is not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's case and
accordingly the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected the representation of
the Petitioner vide order dated 11.10.2023 under Annexure-1 to the writ
application. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 has not
committed any illegality and therefore the writ application is devoid of
merit and the same should be dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
// 4 //
parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the
present case as well as materials on record, this Court observed that the
substance of the pleading in the writ application is quite identical to
some of the cases which have already been decided by this Court on
earlier occasions. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that
the case of the Petitioner is also covered by the decision of this Court in
Bandhua Gochhayat and State of Odisha and others in WPC(OAC)
No.864 of 2018 disposed of vide judgment dated 17.12.2021. In view of
the aforesaid submission, this Court examined the facts of the present
case as well as the facts of case involved in Bandhua Gochhayat's case
(supra). On such examination this Court is of the considered view that
apparently there are some similarities in facts of both cases. In such
view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the case of
the petitioner needs re-examination by the Opposite Party No.1.
Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
application at the stage of admission instead of keeping in view the
same pending before this Court, accordingly, it is granted liberty to the
Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.1
taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents and a
copy of the judgment in Bandhua Gochhayat's case (supra) within a
period of three weeks from today. In such event, the representation is
filed, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the case of the
Petitioner in the light of law laid down by this Court in Bandhua
Gochhayat's case (supra) and dispose of the said representation strictly
in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment in Bandhua
Gochhayat's case (supra) by passing a speaking and reasoned order
within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a
certified copy of this order. It is further clarified that the representation
of the Petitioner shall be considered independently without being
influenced by the order dated 11.10.2023 under Annexure-1 to the writ
application. Any decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1, shall be
// 5 //
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of
taking such a decision.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 09-Dec-2023 14:52:31
