The High Court of Orissa dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a reinstatement claim due to lack of work. Citing Umadevi and distinguishing other precedents, held non-interference where no sanctioned post existed and 10-year service threshold was not met.
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.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
O.J.C. No.13172 of 1999
In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Kailash Roula and others …… Petitioners
Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar and others …… Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : M/s N.C.Panigrahi, S.C.Das,G.S.Das
For Opp.Parties : M/s S.K.Patnaik kand U.C.Mohanty
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE SANJU PANDA &
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of hearing and judgment : 12.07.2017
S. N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited is under challenge whereby and whereunder the authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners for their reinstatement in service due to having no scope to accommodate them in employment.
2
squeezed consequent upon withdrawal of the sponsored scheme and there is no scope to accommodate the petitioners in employment, hence disengaged with effect from 25.10.1999.
He submits that the petitioners have been discriminated only to accommodate others. He further submits that even after retrenchment, compensation as referred in the impugned order has not yet been paid.
He further submits that the authorities have taken decision in the light of the order passed in O.J.C.No.7320 of 1998 wherein well reasoned order has been passed.
He further submits that the contention raised by the petitioners that persons junior to them are continuing is absolutely incorrect. He submits that whatever statement made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners regarding juniors have been retained in service and working prior to issuance of the order impugned or disengaged since 25.10.1999 is not correct.
3
The petitioners have filed representation in the light of the direction passed by this Court in O.J.C.No.7320 of 1998. The Management, with a view to give reasonable opportunity, has requested the petitioners to appear before the Managing Director for personal hearing, accordingly chances of personal hearing have been given. The authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the work area and the workload of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation have been squeezed consequent upon withdrawal of the sponsored scheme and as such there is no scope to accommodate them on employment hence disengaged from service. The said decision of the authorities is before us for its judicial scrutiny.
4
Difference in between illegal appointment and irregular appointment have been discussed in the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka & others – vs- M.L.Kesari & others , reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi-3 has discussed the difference in between illegal appointment and irregular appointment. According to the said judgment, if process in making appointment have not been followed, such appointment will be said to be irregular but if the workers have been appointed without any post having sanctioned or not eligible to hold the post, such type of appointment is said to be illegal. The Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & others –vsM.L.Kesari & others (supra) has clarified the position by directing the State Government to regularize such irregular appointment by completing exercise in its entirety.
So far as the fact in hand is concerned, it is not clear from the pleadings that the appointments are against sanctioned post or not. The petitioners have not completed 10 years of continuous service and more specifically the authority have taken ground that there is no work available due to withdrawal of the sponsored scheme.
We, on appreciation of the facts involved in the instant case, are of the view that the petitioners has failed to make out a case of discrimination since no detail of the persons appointed after them, have been disclosed, rather a vague statement has been given as discussed in the previous paragraph and as such in
5
that view of the matter, the judgment relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is of no help.
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th July,2017/Palai
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should rectify an impugned decision rejecting a claim for reinstatement due to lack of work availability citing the Umadevi judgment.
Whether the petitioner has established discrimination by retaining junior employees after their retrenchment.
Whether the decision of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited denying reinstatement warrants judicial interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi (3) and othersReferred¶29
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi(3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka & others – vs- M.L.Kesari & othersReferred¶31
State of Karnataka & others – vs- M.L.Kesari & others (2010) 9 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and another -vs- D.B.BelliappaDistinguished¶33
The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and another -vs- D.B.Belliappa AIR 1979 SC 429 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kailash Roula and others
Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited and others
S. N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
