Disposed

Ashyumat Sur v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Aug 2019WP(C)/10193/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a writ petition filed by a contractual Gram Rojgar Sevak challenging the cancellation of his engagement. The petitioner contested the order on grounds of violation of natural justice and lack of locus standi. The court observed that the order was passed after considering the petitioner's reply and allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to prefer an appeal

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to prefer an appeal.

Ashyumat Sur Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 10193 of 2019

¶2

06.08.2019 Heard Mr. P.K. Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶3

The petitioner has filed this application assailing the order dated 03.06.2019 in Annexure-1 by which on consideration of the show cause reply given by him, his contractual agreement was cancelled and he was disengaged from contractual service as Gram Rojgar Sevak for dereliction of duty, manipulation of records, harassment to public and showing unruly behavior to Gram Panchayat and Block officials.

¶4

Mr. P.K. Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the petitioner was engaged as Gram Rojgar Sevak on contractual basis and he has been allowed certain duties. While discharging duty, on certain allegations, he has been called upon to file show cause and on that basis the petitioner filed show cause reply. But without considering the show cause reply, the order of cancellation of contractual engagement was passed by the authority. It is contended that though the petitioner submitted show cause reply, the order of cancellation of engagement was passed without complying the principles of natural justice.

¶5

Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that admittedly the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis and, as such, he has no

¶6

¶7

right to challenge the cancellation order. It is contended that when certain allegations were received against him, he has been called upon to show cause and on the basis of reply filed by him, and on consideration of the same, the order in Annexure-1 has been passed by the authority. Therefore, the order so passed in Annexure-1 cannot be faulted with so as to warrant interference by this Court. Further, the contention raised that there was non-compliance of principles of natural justice is absolutely misconceived one in view of the fact that when show cause reply was called for and the petitioner responded the same by filing reply and the same was considered, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice has not been complied with.

¶8

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was engaged as a Gram Rojgar Sevak of Baunsagarh G.P. under Anandpur Block and he was entrusted with supervision of construction of PMAY houses with specific instruction to inspect the houses and recommend for payment of installments at different stages of construction and payment of wages for 95 days each to the R.H. beneficiaries. But the said instruction for payment of wages to the R.H. beneficiaries was not complied with. Therefore, the Block Development Officer, Anandpur reported vide letter dated 24.07.2018 that the petitioner has manipulated the records with mala fide

¶9

¶10

intention and submitted stage bills and recommended for final payment to the beneficiaries when their houses remain un-complete and the payment of MGNREGA component to the R.H. beneficiaries in Baunsagarh G.P. is not satisfactory. Consequence thereof, he has been called upon to show cause and on that basis the petitioner submitted show cause reply and contended that the allegations which have been made was not correct, as the said work was not assigned to him. As such, it is contended that no final order arrived at by the opposite parties while considering the show cause reply submitted by him. The contention raised by the petitioner that principles of natural justice has not been complied with is absolutely misconceived one because notice of show cause has been issued to him and in response to the same, he submitted reply and on consideration of the same, the order in Annexure-1 has been passed by the authority.

¶11

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since appeal provision is there, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum by preferring appeal in accordance with law.

¶12

Prayer is allowed.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

¶14

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶15

Ashok

¶16

Ashyumat Sur v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashyumat Sur v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alekha Ch.Mohanty Vs State

Nimuel Vs Sub-Collector

Debabrata Pattnaik Vs State

Rabinarayan Naik Vs State and Ors.

Satyabhama Das Vs Suptd.,Central Jail

Debajit Kar Vs Commnr S.T.a.Cuttack