The High Court of Orissa held that the petitioner's writ petition seeking quashment of an alleged retrenchment order was not redressable due to unexplained delay and laches, as the petitioner was not discharging duties and another person was engaged in his place for years.
The writ application is dismissed due to delay and laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P. (C) NO. 23230 OF 2010
(From an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India).
| Lalit Jagal | ……… VERSUS |
……. Petitioner |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Ori | ssa & others | ……. Opp.parties. | |
| For Petitioner | : | M/s.Nirmal Ranjan Routray, S.Mishra, S.Mishra, T.K.Choudhury, advocates. |
|
| For Opp.Parties | : ……… |
Mr. B.Rout, Standing Counsel for S & M Department. M/s.D.K.Sahoo, P.K.Mohanty, A.Pradhan, J.K.Swain, advocates. |
PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
Date of hearing-22.09.2016 : Date of judgment- 02.11.2016
In this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashment of
the order dated 27.05.2010 under Anneuxre-6 being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law.
2
2010, he came to know that he had been retrenched by the Village Education Committee (VEC) on the ground of irregular discharge of duty and other illegal activities. According to him, such order of retrenchment, if any, was behind his back and at no point of time he was either asked to submit any explanation or had been heard in the matter.
In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.4, it is stated that on 27.05.2010 no such order was passed nor it was so communicated to the petitioner rejecting his claim for consideration of his engagement as Gana Sikshyaka. In fact, a detail report being called for by the opposite party nos.1 and 2 as regards non-engagement of some of Education Volunteers as Gana Sikshyakas in the district of Bargarh, opposite party no.4 had provided the list of such educational volunteers giving the detail reasons of their non rehabilitation. Prior to the consideration of the matter of engagement of Education Volunteers of the district as Gana Sikshyakas as per the Resolution of the Government dated 16.02.2008, the petitioner having been retrenched by the Village Education Committee from the post of Education Volunteers and in his place opposite party no.5 since had been engaged by order dated 03.07.2006 by the said Village Education Committee who was at the relevant time discharging the duty as such, his case has been duly considered for rehabilitation as the petitioner’s case did not merit consideration being not coming within the purview of said Resolution under Annexure-2.
3
A careful perusal of the same does not provide any impression as regard the such suspicious features as pointed out to have been appearing thereon on the last occasion by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4
had no knowledge about his retrenchment and the other important
consequential development of engagement of opp. party no.5 in that very centre and his subsequent rehabilitation till the month of July, 2010 is not satisfactory and thus not at all acceptable; more so when as against his post, the opposite party no.5 had been working till the closure of the centre receiving remuneration and then had been rehabilitated as Gana Sikshyak in consonance with the resolution of the Government under Annexure-2 before that and has by now working as such for quite a long length of time acting under the justified belief.
D.Dash, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 02nd day of November, 2016/Himansu
5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's writ application seeking quashment of the retrenchment order stands barred due to delay and laches.
Lalit Jagal
State of Ori
D.Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
