Sri Paramananda Sarangi vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4992 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                W.P.(C) No.17510 of 2022

                 Sri Paramananda Sarangi                ....            Petitioner
                                                    Mr. Lokanath Rath, Advocate
                                              -versus-
                 State of Odisha and others             ....       Opposite Parties
                                                             Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.


                                     CORAM:
                            JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

                                           ORDER

Order No. 03.05.2023

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

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with a prayer for quashing the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-1 and further for a direction to the Opposite Parties to bring the Petitioner over the work charged establishment w.e.f. 07.02.2009, i.e., the date on which his juniors, who were working in the Rajib Bhawan, were brought over to the work charged establishment and for a direction to release consequential benefits like differential arrear salary to him w.e.f. 07.02.2009 upto the date on which the Petitioner brought over to the work charged // 2 //

establishment and thereafter to bring the Petitioner to the regular establishment and give him all service and financial benefits including regular scale of pay.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed on 01.02.1995 as Light Vehicle Driver on NMR basis in Rukura Investigation Division, Rourkela under E.I.C., Water Resources. Thereafter, the Petitioner continued in service on such NMR basis. While the matter stood thus, the Water Resources Department with the concurrence of Finance Department decided to continue 111 numbers of NMR personnel whose continuance was considered essential out of 613 numbers of NMRs engaged after the cut-off date, i.e. 12.04.1993 and disengaged the rest 502 by the Water Resources Department letter dated 05.09.2003. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further drawing attention of this Court to the letter dated 05.09.2003 under Annexure-3 written by the joint secretary to Government of Odisha to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, submitted that the Joint Secretary has categorically mentioned in the said letter that the Government of Odisha in Water Resources Department has been pleased to allow continuance of 111 numbers of NMR personnel out of 613 numbers of NMR personnel after the cut-off date and further it was decided to disengage the rest 502 numbers of NMR personnel on payment of appropriate terminal dues. It was also decided that the current wages of the 111 NMR personnel to be paid from the existing budgetary provision. In the said letter, it has also been mentioned that the list of 111 numbers of NMR personnel be forwarded to the Water Resources // 3 //

Department for taking further action at their end and the said letter also reveals that the concurrence of the Finance Department has been taken vide UOR No.3218/P&F dated 16.8.2003.

5. In reply to the letter dated 05.09.2003 under Annexure-3, the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar submitted a list of 111 numbers of NMR personnel whose services have been retained after taking due concurrence of the Finance Department by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Odisha. A copy of the list attached to letter dated 14.01.2004 under Annexrue-4 reveals that the name of the Petitioner finds place as a Light Vehicle Driver (DLR) of Rukura Investigation Division, Rourkela. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is not disputed that the Petitioner was retained in service after a decision was taken to disengage all the NMR employees, who are appointed after the cut-off date.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further drawing attention of this Court to a judgment of this Court in Pramod Kumar Patra & others v. State of Oidhsa and others (W.P.(C) No.12498 of 2022 and batch of other writ petitions, which were disposed of by this Court vide common judgment dated 31.03.2023), submitted that the Petitioner stands on similar footing with the Petitioners in the above noted case. He further contended that the Petitioner in the above referred judgment also come within 111 numbers NMR personnel, who were retained in Government service after the cut- off date with the concurrence of the Finance Department. This Court after considering the case in detail has disposed of the batch // 4 //

of writ petitions vide a common judgment after coming to a conclusion that the Petitioners stand in similar footing with Prakash Nanda and 10 others whose services were brought over to the regular establishment pursuant to the order of Tribunal and that case was not only affirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6155 of 2018 vide order dated 27.08.2018, the same has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No.4326 of 2020 vide order dated 27.08.2021 by dismissing the State SLP. The relevant portion as contained in paragraph-19 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:-

"19. Therefore, treating the present petitioners differently would amount to discrimination and the same would be hit by the underlying principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also the settled position of law that in the matter of employment if the persons stand in a similar footing, then they are to be treated equally and the similar benefit has to be given to the persons who are similarly placed. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the order passed by the Opposite Party No.1 dtd.04.05.2022 under Annexure-16 is unsustainable in law as the same is highly arbitrary, illegally and discriminatory. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to bring over the petitioners to the work charge establishment and similar benefits be extended to the petitioners as has been given in the case of Prakash Nanda & 10 others from the date such benefits were paid to the above named employees. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order."

7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that since the judgment in Pramod Kumar Patra & others's case (supra) has been rendered recently on 31.03.2023, the authority had no // 5 //

occasion to examine the same. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in a common judgment dated 31.03.2023 in Pramod Kumar Patra & others's case (supra) and he will not have any objection to the same.

8. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon a careful examination of the background facts of the case and in view of the letters referred to hereinabove, there is no denying the fact that the Petitioner also belongs to the category of 111 number of NMR personnel, who were retained with the concurrence of the Finance Department even after the cut-off date, i.e., 12.04.1993. Therefore, he be also treated at par with similar employees belonging to the category of 111 numbers of NRM personnel and whose cases have been considered by this Court in the above noted judgment.

9. In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court thinks it proper to quash the impugned order of rejection dated 04.07.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Odisha, Water Resources Department under Annexure-1 and, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the matter afresh. In the event the authority come to a conclusion that the Petitioner comes within the category of 111 numbers of NMR personnel as has been reflected in the letter dated 14.01.2004 under Annexure-4, then the Petitioner shall be treated at par with the Petitioners in Pramod Kumar Patra & others's case (supra) and, accordingly, direction // 6 //

given in paragraph-19 of the W.P.(C) No.12498 of 2022 and the batch of other matters vide common judgment dated 31.03.2023 be also carried out in the case of the Petitioner within a period of three months hence.

10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stand disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

DEBASIS AECH Digitally signed by DEBASIS AECH Date: 2023.05.05 18:17:25 +05'30'