Orissa High Court
Sanjib Narayan Prasad Pati vs State Of Odisha And Others on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 32311 of 2023
Sanjib Narayan Prasad Pati .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Mohanty(A), Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Tarun Patnaik, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.10.2023
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing 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 present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the following prayers:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application;
ii) Call for the records;
iii) Issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties
to show cause why the disengagement of
service of the petitioner after 22.6.2023 shall not be
declared illegal and contrary to law and why the
// 2 //
order dt. 29.08.2023 (Annexure-10) shall not be
quashed being contrary to the records and why the
fresh advertisement under Annexue-II shall not be
quashed;
And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause or
show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made
absolute and the disengagement of service of the
petitioner beyond 22.6.2023 may be declared
illegal and the order dt. 29.8.2023 (Annexue-10)
and fresh advertisement (Annexure-II) to appoint
new contractual staff against the post of petitioner
by Opp. Parties may be quashed;
And further be pleased to pass any other
writ(s), order(s) as deemed fit and proper in
presence of the petitioner and for the ends of
justice."
4. It is submitted by Mr. A.K. Mohanty(A), learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement
published by NABARD under Annexure-1 to the writ petition,
the Petitioner applied for the post of Team Leader
(Contractual). Thereafter, on being selected, the Petitioner was
asked to execute an agreement on 30.5.2022. A copy of such
agreement has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On
perusal of the agreement, it reveals that the agreement was
initially for a period of three months. Thereafter, the same was
renewed from time to time till 22.6.2023. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner was engaged
as Team Leader (Banking Expert) from 23.08.2022 to
22.1.2023 with a consolidated monthly remuneration of rupees
one lakh. Such contract provides the termination of the contract
by either party by giving one month prior notice. He further
// 3 //
contended that the contract which was executed initially was
being renewed from time to time and last of such contract was
to expire on 22.6.2023. After expiry of the contract on
22.6.2023, the same has not been renewed further, although the
Petitioner was performing his duties to the satisfaction of the
authorities. He further contended that the project in which the
Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis is continuing and
the Government of India has sanctioned fund of Rs.707 crores
for the financial year 2023-24.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
prior to the expiry of the last validly executed contract, the
Petitioner had approached the DGM to renew the contract on
16.6.2023. However, no steps were taken and the contract was
allowed to lapse and further the Petitioner was asked to
handover the records as well as the laptop etc., which were in
his possession. Thereafter, the Petitioner made several requests
for renewal of his contract as the project is ongoing and the
Government of India has allocated more funds on such project.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
although the Petitioner was discharging his duties to the best of
his ability and to the satisfaction of the authorities, the Opposite
Parties did not renew his contract. However, in the meantime,
they have published an advertisement for engagement of Team
Leader (Banking Expert) under Annexure-11 to the writ
petition. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that while the candidates are appointed in
// 4 //
the project on contractual basis, such appointment is a project
mode appointment and the same is co-terminus with the project.
While in the present case, while the project is continuing, the
contract of the Petitioner was not renewed. On the contrary, the
Opposite Parties is trying to hire new contractual employees in
place of the present Petitioner. In the said context, learned
counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v.
Piara Singh and others, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 as well
as this Court in Dillip Kumar Baral v. Biju Pattnaik
University and Technology (BPUT), represented through the
Registrar, Rourkela & Anr., reported in 116 (2013) CLT-1029,
submitted before this Court that the set of contractual
employees cannot be replaced by another set of employees. In
such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the entire approach of the Opposite Parties in
advertising the contractual post again is highly illegal and
contrary to the well settled principles of law, so far contractual
employees are concerned.
7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that
although the State Government has no role in the engagement of
the contractual employees and funding of the project, however,
he further submitted that the beneficiary of such project is the
State Government. Therefore, it is contended by the learned
Additional Standing Counsel by referring to the reply under
// 5 //
Annexure-10 to the writ petition that the performance of the
Petitioner was not found satisfactory. Therefore, the contract in
this case has not been renewed. In such view of the matter, it is
submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any
illegality at all in not renewing the contract in favour of the
Petitioner and at the same time advertisement of such
contractual post for engagement of new persons. In such view
of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted
that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and the same
should not be entertained.
8. On a careful consideration of submissions made by the
learned counsels appearing for the parties and on scrutiny of the
background facts of the present case as well as the materials on
record, this Court observed that the project involved in the
present writ petition is funded and financed by Government of
India and to be executed by NABARD through NABARD
Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., which is a wholly subsidiary of
NABARD. Further, the advertisement pursuant to which the
Petitioner applied for the post of Team Leader (Banking Expert)
is governed by the terms and conditions contained in the
advertisement under Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On a
careful examination of the advertisement under Annexure-2
reveals that the contract period as mentioned under Clause-8 of
the advertisement reveals that the Project Based Contract Staff
(PBCS) would be hired on contract basis initially for a period
upto 30 April, 2023, which may be extended based on the
// 6 //
requirement of the project and performance or will be co-
terminus with the project period. In the present case, initially a
contract was executed with the Petitioner in respect of the Team
Leader (Banking Expert) post which was extended on quite few
occasions till 23rd June, 2023. Thereafter, the same has not been
renewed, although the project is ongoing and more funds have
been allocated for such project, the service of the Petitioner has
been dispensed with without assigning any valid reason. It is not
a case that where the Petitioner was not found suitable for the
post or his performance was not upto the expectation and that is
the case, the Petitioner would have been given opportunity to
show cause or the contract while terminated as per the
termination clause contained in the contract itself. Therefore,
the present case is a case where the contract with the Petitioner
has come to an end on expiry of the tenure of the contract and
thereafter the same has not been renewed. On the contrary, the
Opposite Parties have again issued an advertisement to fill up
such contractual post. On a careful analysis of factual
background of the case, this Court is of the considered view that
a well settled principle of law that a set of contractual employee
cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee and
the same shall have full application to the fact of the present
case.
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts as well as law,
this Court without entering into the merits of the matter at this
stage deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing
// 7 //
the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.4-AGM,
NABARD, In-Charge of NABARD Consultancy Service Pvt.
Ltd., Delhi by filing a detailed grievance petition taking therein
all the grounds along with supporting documents within a
period of two weeks from today. In the event such a petition is
filed, the Opposite Party No.4 shall do well to consider the same
in the light of the aforesaid analysis and dispose of the
grievance petition by passing a speaking and reasoned order
within a period of three weeks from the date of communication
of a certified copy of this order along with a petition as has been
indicated hereinabove. The finally decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. It is
further directed that till a decision is taken on the grievance
petition of the Petitioner as has been directed hereinabove, the
post of Team Leader (Banking Expert) shall not be filled up.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC CUTTACK
Date: 12-Oct-2023 19:52:47
