Dismissed

Dellip Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 May 2022WPC(OA)/210/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged an order directing the disengagement of the petitioner who was previously regularized but found ineligible as he was never a contractual employee. The court dismissed the petition, finding the disengagement order lawful, while granting an observation on age relaxation for future regular appointments.

What did the court decide?

The interim order allowing continuation in service is vacated; the petition is dismissed; an observation is made regarding age relaxation and eligibility for the post in future recruitment.

Dellip Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPC(OA) NO.210 OF 2015
In the matter of an application under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Dillip Kumar Das …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. R.K. Bisoi
For Opp. Parties: M/s. N.K. Praharaj
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 29.4.2022 & Date of Order:13.5.2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1 . This matter is taken up by video conferencing
mode.
2. Heard Mr. R.K. Bisoi, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and Mr. N. K. Praharaj, learned A.G.A
for the State-Opp. Parties.

¶3

3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 16.1.2015 under Annexure11 wherein the CDPO, Puri Sadar-Opp. Party No.4 was directed to dis-engage the petitioner from his post

¶4

// 2 //

¶5

forthwith and to report compliance to the Sub-Collector,

¶6

Puri-Opp. Party No.3.

¶7

4. It is submitted by Mr. Bisoi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the petitioner while working in the Establishment Deptt. in the office of Opp. Party No.4, he was regularized in his service w.e.f 17.9.2013 as per G.A. Deptt. Resolution dated 17.9.20123 and basing on the direction of Sub-Collectorcum-Chairman, I.C.D.S, Puri Sadar vide his letter dated 29.1.2014. It is submitted that since the petitioner was regularized in terms of order dated 14.2.2014 under Annexure-10, there was no occasion on the part of the self-same Sub-Collector, Puri to direct Opp. Party No.4 to disengage the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 16.1.2015 under Annexure-11. It is also submitted that by virtue of interim order passed by the learned Tribunal on 22.1.2015, the Petitioner was continuing as a regular Peon in the office of Opp. Party No.4 and accordingly, it is submitted that the order at Annexure-11 be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to continue as regular Peon in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4.

¶8

5. Mr. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties made his

¶9

Page 2 of 5

¶10

// 3 //

¶11

submission in the light of the stand taken by the Opp.

¶12

Party No.4 in her counter. It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged as daily wage worker in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 and at no point of time, he was engaged as a contractual employee. Therefore, the direction issued by the Sub-Collectorcum-Chairman vide his letter dated 29.1.2014 to regularize the service of the petitioner in terms of G.A. Department Resolution No.17.9.2013 is not just and proper. The said Resolution dated 17.9.2013 issued by the G.A. Department was meant for absorption of such contractual employee on completion of six years of service. It is submitted that since the petitioner at no point of time was engaged as contractual employee, Opp. Party No.3 subsequent to his direction issued on 29.1.2014 found that the petitioner is not covered by the guideline issued in the Resolution dated 17.9.2013 and accordingly directed the Opp. Party No.4 to disengage the petitioner vide his communication dated 16.1.2015 under Annexure-11. It is accordingly submitted that no illegality has been committed by Opp. Party No.3 in issuing the order dated 16.1.2015 under Annexure-11

¶13

Page 3 of 5

¶14

// 4 //

¶15

by directing the Opp. Party No.4 to disengage the

¶16

petitioner .

¶17

6. Even though the counter affidavit is filed since 28.4.2017, but no rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner controverting the stand taken in the counter. Mr. Bisoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner when vehemently argued that after allowing the petitioner to continue as a regular Peon vide order under Annexuire-10, Opp. Party No.3 should not have issued the impugned order dated 16.1.2015 under Annexure-11 with a direction to disengage the petitioner, this Court when posed a question to Mr. Bisoi to show any document regarding appointment of the petitioner as a contractual Peon in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4, Mr. Bisoi failed to provide any such document.

¶18

7. It is never the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as a contractual employee and his case is covered by the G.A. Deptt. Resolution dated 17.9.2013, Opp. Party No.3 vide his letter dated 29.1.2014 directed for regularization of the service of the Petitioner and the said order was implemented vide order under Annexure10. But the said Opp. Party on coming to know that the claim of the Petitioner is not covered by the said

¶19

Page 4 of 5

¶20

// 5 //

¶21

resolution, he rightly issued the impugned order dated 16.1.2015 under Annexure-11 by directing the Opp. Party No.4 to disengage the petitioner forthwith. Since the petitioner at no point of time was engaged as a contractual employee, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the direction issued by the Sub-Collector, Puri- Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-11. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.1.2015 passed by the Sub-Collector, PuriOpp. Party No.3 under Annexure-11 and accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶22

8. However, it is observed that since the petitioner is continuing as a daily wage worker, he will be given age relaxation and allowed to take part if at any point of time, Opp. Party No.3 takes step to fill up the post of Peon in the office of Opp. Party No.4 on regular basis.

¶23

9. The interim order passed by this Court on 22.1.2015 stands vacated.

¶24

10. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition

¶25

stands dismissed.

¶26

B.P. Satapathy, J.

¶27

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 13^th May, 2022/sangita

¶28

Page 5 of 5

Dellip Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dellip Kumar Das 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjan Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sabitri Mandi Vs State of Odisha

Atreya Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha

Dipak Kumar Nath Vs State of Odisha

Rashmita Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Moharana Vs Union of India