Orissa High Court
Kandra Soren vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 4 November, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.9851 of 2017
Kandra Soren ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
04.11.2024
Order No.05
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.C. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the
Opp. Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging
order dtd.23.02.2017 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-
8. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of
reengagement as a Gana Sikshyak was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was
engaged as a Gana Sikshyak vide order of engagement issued on
30.09.2008 under Annexure-1. It is contended that while so
continuing, Petitioner because of his implication in a criminal case in
Bangiriposi P.S. Case No. 10 dtd.18.01.2012 was disengaged
w.e.f.20.01.2012 under Annexure-2.
4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal case vide Judgment dtd.11.12.2013 under
Annexure-3. It is contended that since Petitioner was honourably
acquitted in the criminal case, Petitioner made an application for his
reengagement on 11.02.2014 under Annexure-4. As the claim of the
Petitioner for his reengagement was not considered, Petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1081 of 2017. This
Court vide order dtd.25.01.2017 under Annexure-6 when directed
Opp. Party No. 3 to consider the claim of the Petitioner, impugned
order under Annexure-8 was passed, wherein claim of the Petitioner
was rejected.
4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since
Petitioner because of his implication in the criminal case was
disengaged vide order under Annexure-2, in view of the order of
acquittal passed under Annexure-3, Petitioner is eligible and entitled
to get the benefit of reengagement. But Opp. Party No. 3 only on the
ground that in the order of engagement a condition was there that
Petitioner at any time without assigning any reason can be
disengaged, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of reengagement
was rejected.
4.3. It is further contended that since the order of acquittal is on merit
and not on the ground of benefit of doubt, claim of the Petitioner to
get the benefit of reengagement was required to be considered by
Opp. Party No. 3 taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 31 of
the said order has held as follows:-
"31. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the D.B Special
Appeal (Writ) No.484 of 2011 dated 05.09.2018. We direct that
the appellant shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits
including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and
all other benefits. As far as backwages are concerned, we are
inclined to award the appellant 50% of the backwages. The
directions be complied with within a period of four weeks from
today."
4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied on other two
decisions of this Court in the case of Abhimanyu Mallick Vs. State
of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 17307 of 2020 and Sri Babarao
Himirika Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 12309 of 2016).
It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is liable to be
interfered with by this Court.
5. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since
28.07.2017, but no counter affidavit has been filed as on date.
However, basing on instruction learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
contended that since Petitioner was implicated in a case registered
under Sec. 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, even if Petitioner has
been acquitted vide Judgment dtd.11.12.2013 under Annexure-3, but
because of his implication in the said case and the nature of
allegation, he was not only disengaged vide order under Annexure-2,
but also his claim for reengagement has been rightly rejected. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned order requires no
interference of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner
was engaged as a Gana Sikshyak vide order of engagement issued on
30.09.2008 under Annexure-1. As found from the record Petitioner
because of his implication in Bangiriposi P.S. Case No. 10
dtd.18.01.2012 was disengaged w.e.f.20.01.2012 vide order
dtd.20.01.2012 under Annexure-2. As further found, in the criminal
case Petitioner was acquitted honourably vide Judgment
dtd.11.12.2013 under Annexure-3.
6.1. In view of the nature of acquittal available under Annexure-3
and the decisions in the case of Ram Lal as well as the decisions of
this Court, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which claim
of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order
dtd.23.02.2017 under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.23.02.2017 so
issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-8. While quashing the
same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 3 to take a fresh
decision, the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of
reengagement taking into account the decision in the case of Ram
Lal as well as the other two decisions as cited (supra). Such a fresh
decision as directed be taken within a further period of two (2)
months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to
provide copy of this order along with the decisions in the case of
Ram Lal and other decisions of this Court as cited supra before Opp.
Party No. 3 for compliance.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and
direction.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
