Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vs Chief Administrator Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri

Assailing impugned order No.3152/XXIII-110/22, dated 06.04.2022 under Annexure-6 passed by the Administrator (Dev.), Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri-opposite party no.2, wherein and whereby the representation dated 11.11.2021 for payment of arrear salary for the period from May, 2020 to October, 2020 and thereafter from June, 2021 to September, 2021 was rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:

¶12

“ The petitioner therefore most humbly prays that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application and after hearing both the parties, be pleased to quash the letter under Annexure-6 issued by the opposite party no.2 and while quashing the same be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to pay the arrear salary of the petitioner for the period from May, 2020 to October, 2020 and from June, 2021 to September, 2021 with interest at

¶13

Page 1 of 9

¶14

the normal rate from the date the amount became due and be pleased to pass any other order/orders or direction as Your Lordships think just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶16

Facts as adumbrated in the writ petition reveals that for smooth functioning of the office in the matter of sale of land of Shree Jagannath Temple, Collection of Rajabhag and identification of land of Shree Jagannath Temple existing all over the State and collection of Rajabhag dues from the tenants of Shree Jagannath Temple Land, look after the landed property of Lord Sri Jagannath, collection of R.O.R., identification of Bhaga tenants on temple land, to expedite the hearing and disposal of Bebandobast status, Orissa Estates Abolition Cases, Revenue Miscellaneous Cases, Encroachment Cases, Settlement and Consolidation Objection Cases, Appeal Cases, Revision Cases, Certificate Cases and any other revenue related matters of temple land, the opposite parties decided to appoint retired Government employees having knowledge in laws relating to land revenue and survey settlement as Co-ordination Officers, Amins and Collection Agents in the temple administration, for which an advertisement was published in Newspapers inviting applications for suitable candidates.

¶17

3.1. Since the petitioner was retired as Government servant while working as Assistant Settlement Officer, he was selected in interview and appointed as Co-ordination Officer vide Letter No.2313 dated 06.03.2019 issued by the Chief Administrator of

¶18

Page 2 of 9

¶19

Shree Jagannath Temple to deal with cases relating to sale of land in the district of Cuttack.

¶20

3.2. Pursuance thereto, the petitioner joined as Co-ordination Officer (for short, “CO”) on 08.03.2019 at Branch Office of Shree Jagannath Temple at Cuttack which is a temporary nature of job with consolidated pay of Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶21

3.3. The petitioner submitted that though the said monthly payment was made till April, 2020, no salary was paid from May, 2020 to October, 2020, and thereafter payments were made for the period from November, 2020 to May, 2021, but there was stoppage of payment from June, 2021 till September, 2021.

¶22

3.4. The petitioner, hence, approached the authorities for payment of his monthly dues. Since no result yielded, he approached this Court by way of filing writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.32672 of 2021, which came to be disposed of on 05.11.2021 with the following observation:

¶23

“5. Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.1 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-3 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”

¶24

3.5. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner made a representation to the opposite party on 11.11.2021 but no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed contempt petition being CONTC No.1722 of 2022 bringing it to the notice of

¶25

Page 3 of 9

¶26

this Court regarding non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 05.11.2021. Said contempt petition was disposed of with the following order on 31.03.2022:

¶27

“***3. As a last chance, the contemnor is given eight weeks’ time to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.32672 of 2021 from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner, if the same has not been stayed by any higher forum. Failure to comply with the direction of this Court will attract serious penal consequences under the Contempt of Court’s Act and the contemnor shall not be allowed to take the plea of any omission or lack of knowledge etc.

¶28

4. With the aforesaid observation, the present contempt petition is disposed of by giving a last chance to the contemnor to comply with the direction of this Court.***”

¶29

3.6. Still there was non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 05.11.2021. Therefore, the petitioner filed another contempt petition, being CONTC No.4349 of 2022, which came up before this Court on 06.01.2023, on which date learned Advocate for the opposite party no.1 furnished information that the representation of the petitioner had already been disposed of on 06.04.2022 and copy of decision taken thereon was communicated to the petitioner. Taking into consideration such statement of learned Advocate for the opposite party no.1, this Court disposed of the said contempt petition on 06.01.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to approach this

¶30

Page 4 of 9

¶31

Court by way of filing appropriate proceeding. Said order in contempt runs thus:

¶32

“***

¶33

2.*** In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken, it is open for him to approach this Court by filing an appropriate proceeding. In such view of the matter, the Contempt Proceeding is dropped.”

¶34

3.7. Since the grievance of the petitioner was not meted out, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in this second round of litigation in the present writ petition.

¶35

Mr. Gourang Charan Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though extension of period of engagement is a formal one, the petitioner has been continuing to work as Co-ordination Officer till he was served with duly constituted termination letter by the employer. He further submitted that as per the terms of appointment, the petitioner was temporarily engaged and when his service was no longer required, he was disengaged vide order dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure-2) along with seven others. He was then relieved with effect from 30.09.2021 as would be apparent from Annexure-4, i.e ., Office Order bearing No.XXIII-106/21/9771 dated 24.09.2021 issued from the Office of Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri.

¶36

4.1. Thus from the above documents it is evinced that the petitioner was in service of the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration from 08.03.2019 to 30.09.2021. Referring to performance report sent to Shree Jagannath Temple each month vide Annexure-8 series, he submitted that the petitioner has been executing the job assigned to him till 30.09.2021. Therefore, the

¶37

Page 5 of 9

¶38

refusal of payment for the period mentioned in the prayer of the writ petition vide impugned letter dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure-6) warrants indulgence. For better comprehension, the said letter is quoted hereunder:-

¶39

“ Sri Jagannath Temple Office, Puri

¶40

No.3152/XXIII-110/22 Dated 06.04.2022 To Sri Prafulla Kumar Sahoo, At-Laxmi Bazar, Jobra,

¶41

Po-College Square, Cuttack-3 Mob-9763693774.

¶42

You have filed one representation on 11.11.2021 before the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri for payment of arrear salary for the period from May 2020 and for the period from June 2021 to Sep, 2021.

¶43

As regards your deployment in SJTA, Puri, it is ascertained that you were temporarily engaged as Coordination Officer, Shree Jagannath Temple Office, Puri and stationed at Cuttack RDC Office, Puri on purely temporary basis for a period of six months on a consolidated pay of Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶44

During the course of your employment, no extension order in respect of your engagement was passed/issued by SJTA. Puri commencing the period from May, 2020 to October, 2020 due to adverse impact of Covid-19 Pandemic for which the remuneration for such period was not paid to you and not paid to any deployed staff. Again, it

¶45

was ascertained from the office records that no

¶46

Page 6 of 9

¶47

engagement was given from June 2021 to Sept, 2021 and you have not also performed any work during the said period.

¶48

Owing to the above noted omission, you alongwith other seven deployed staff were disengaged from Temple office with immediate effect vide this Office Order No.9744 dtd.23.09.2021.

¶49

Your post retirement appointment was purely temporary in nature and it was subjected to termination at any time when the SJTA found your service not required for the office.

¶50

As such your representation deserves no merit and the same stands rejected and you are not entitled to get any relief as claimed in your representation.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

Administrator (Dev.) Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri”

¶53

On perusal of record, this Court finds that notice being issued on 19.05.2023, M/s. Subrat Satpathy, Laxminarayan Rayatsingh and P.R. Behera, Advocates filed Vakalatanama on 02.06.2023 being executed by the Chief Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri, and entered appearance, but without filing any response to the contents and averments of the writ petition.

¶54

5.1. On 19.09.2024, when the matter was listed, none represented on behalf of the opposite parties at the time of call. Accordingly, opportunity is granted to the opposite parties to be represented on the next date fixed for hearing. This matter, being listed today, i.e ., 04.10.2024, on adjournment, at the repeated call

¶55

Page 7 of 9

¶56

none appeared for the opposite parties. Finding no other option, this Court proceeded with the matter.

¶57

Heard Mr. Gourang Charan Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶58

This Court appreciates the submissions of Sri Gourang Charan Mohapatra, learned Advocate and on perusal of record, finds that the performance report(s) covering different periods showing job being performed, as stated to have submitted by the petitioner (Co-ordination Officer) to the Authority concerned of Shree Jagannath Temple Office vide Annexure-8 series, has not been controverted. It transpires that the letter dated 06.04.2022 under Annexure-6 does not inspire correct statement of fact. It is perceived that the Administrator (Dev.), Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri has simply rejected by saying that “it was ascertained from the office records that no engagement was given from June, 2021 to September, 2021”.

¶59

Therefore, this Court deems it proper to interfere with the refusal of dues for the periods indicated in the prayer of the writ petition.

¶60

8.1. In such view of the matter, interest of justice would be best served if opposite party no.2 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner afresh— without being biased by earlier decision taken by him as communicated in letter dated 06.04.2022— within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. For the said purpose, the petitioner may approach the opposite party no.2 with a copy of this order within a week and furnish copies of performance report(s) as formed part of the writ petition vide Annexure-8 series, which shall be considered by the opposite party

¶61

Page 8 of 9

¶62

no.2 in its own merit and take appropriate decision. The opposite party no.2 shall also communicate decision so taken to the petitioner forthwith.

¶63

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶64

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶65

Laxmikant

¶66

Signature Not Verified

¶67

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Oct-2024 13:06:28

¶68

Page 9 of 9

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. Chief Administrator Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. Chief Administrator Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udayanath Behera Vs Pratap Chandra Pathy

Aswini Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Tribhuban Behera Vs State of Odisha

Lambodar Sethi Vs State of Orissa

Dina Bandhu Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ajit Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha