Dismissed

Pabitra Ku.Samal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jan 2023WA/17/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ appeal filed by five appellants challenging the dismissal of their original petition for non-compliance. Finding no valid explanation for thirteen years of delay, the court held there was no equity to grant relief and vacated an interim stay order, directing the appellants to approach the Government for re-engagement.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; interim order dated 16th January, 2020 vacated; no direction granted for immediate re-engagement.

Pabitra Ku.Samal Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.17 of 2020

¶2

Pabitra Kumar Sal & Others …. Appellants

¶3

Mr. Jyotirmaya Gupta, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Others

¶6

…. Respondents Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, Standing Counsel for S & ME

¶7

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN

¶8

ORDER 03.01.2023

¶9

Order No.

¶10

The challenge in the present writ appeal is to an order dated 28^th December, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.17614 of 2019, in W.P.(C) No.5031 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to recall the earlier order dated 16^th May, 2019 dismissing the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated 20^th April, 2006.

¶11

The background facts are that the aforementioned writ petition was originally filed by twenty-four persons who claimed to have been engaged as Swechhasevi Siksha Sahayak (SSS) way back in 2004 but were disengaged pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003, in which irregularities committed in the selection of SSS was noticed and all irregular

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

orders passed were asked to be cancelled. The writ petitioners were not thereafter re-engaged and, accordingly, filed the above writ petition, inter alia, for a direction to the Opposite Parties to reengage them.

¶14

It appears that initially in the said writ petition, while issuing notice on 20^th April, 2006 an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that if the Petitioners were continuing as SSS and were discharging their duties “they shall not be terminated without leave of this Court”. In terms of the order, requisites were be filed by 24^th April, 2006. On 29^th June, 2006 when the matter was listed, none appeared for the writ petitioners. Since it was noticed that the requisites have not been filed, the interim order dated 20^th April, 2006 was vacated by the Court. This order vacating the stay was not challenged by the writ petitioners.

¶15

For thirteen years thereafter the writ petition was not listed. However, for some reason, despite vacation of the stay order, the writ petitioners continued in service. In the meanwhile, after abolition of the post of SSS, they continued as Junior Teachers.

¶16

The said writ petition was listed before the learned Single Judge on 16^th May, 2019 when it was noticed that even till that date requisites had not been filed for issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties. The learned Single Judge declined to grant further adjournment in the matter and dismissed the writ petition for noncompliance of the order dated 20^th April, 2006.

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

Thereafter, I.A. No.17614 of 2019 was filed for recalling the above order dated 16^th May, 2019. The said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 20^th December, 2019 noticing the above facts and finding no justifiable reason to recall the order dated 16^th May, 2019.

¶19

While issuing notice in the present writ appeal on 16^th January, 2020 when this Court was informed by the counsel for the Appellants that they were continuing in service, this Court directed that “if the appellants are continuing in service, they shall continue till the next date”.

¶20

It may be noticed here that although the writ petition was filed by twenty-four persons, the present writ appeal was filed only by five persons.

¶21

There is no valid explanation offered by the Appellants for their failure to file the requisites for thirteen long years in the writ petition. The explanation that the earlier counsel was negligent in failing to file the requisites does not impress the Court as the Appellants ought to have followed up with their counsel on the fate of the writ petition, which obviously they failed to do. In other words, the Appellants were not diligent in ascertaining the progress and status of the writ petition.

¶22

There is also a technical difficulty, inasmuch as in the present writ appeal the Appellants have challenged only the order dated 20^th December, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and not the

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

original order dated 16^th May, 2019, by which the writ petition was dismissed.

¶25

Be that as it may, with there being no interim order in favour of the Appellants for a period of thirteen long years between 24^th April, 2006 and 16^th May, 2019, there is no equity in their favour for continuation of such interim order at this stage. Further merely restoring the writ petition without any interim order would not serve the purpose of the Appellants. In effect, the Court is unable to find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 20^th December, 2019.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Appellants then submits that the Appellants will approach the State for their re-engagement in accordance with the existing policy of the Government.

¶27

The writ appeal is dismissed and the interim order dated 16^th January, 2020 is vacated. This will, however, would not come in the way of the Appellants approaching the Government for their reengagement in accordance with law.

¶28

MRS/Laxmikant

¶29

Page 4 of 4

Pabitra Ku.Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pabitra Ku.Samal 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

Grameswar Dev and Ors. Vs Collector,Puri andORS.

Kaushalyadas Math Vs State

State Vs Krushna Mohan

M/S Sarada Nivas Pvt. Ltd., Jajpur Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi

M/S Hotel Pranaminn Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi

Pramod Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha