Mohan Pradhani Vs State — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Mohan Pradhani Vs State — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No coercive action to be taken against the Petitioner in terms of the direction contained in Para 6(iii) of the impugned order dt.26.08.2014; the impugned order otherwise left uninterfered with.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the final order dtd.26.08.2014 passed in FCC No. 13 of 2013, by which the certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled, which the writ petition challenges. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the Petitioner's undertaking not to claim any service or financial benefit nor to challenge (or having not challenged) the termination passed after cancellation of the certificate, and the undisputed fact that his children availed no benefit out of the certificate, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dt.26.08.2014.

Ratio / Principle

While leaving the impugned order dt.26.08.2014 undisturbed, this Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner in terms of the direction contained in Para 6(iii) of the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP(C) No. 18786 of 2014 (Order No. 06, decided 05.12.2024) - Mohan Pradhani v. State of Odisha & Ors. - High Court of Orissa at Cuttack - Hon'ble Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. - Petitioner challenged the final order dtd.26.08.2014 passed in FCC No. 13 of 2013, whereby the Committee cancelled the certificate issued in his favour; following the cancellation he was terminated from service. In course of hearing the Petitioner undertook (i) not to raise any claim to the service and financial benefits from which he was dismissed, (ii) neither to assail nor further assail the termination order, and (iii) that his children had not availed any benefit by utilising the certificate - facts not disputed by the State. The Court accordingly declined to interfere with the impugned order dt.26.08.2014 and confined itself to directing that no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner in terms of the direction contained in Para 6(iii) of that order. Writ petition disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 18786 of 2014

Mohan Pradhani

.....

Petitioner

Ms. S. Pattnaik, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

05.12.2024

Order No. 06

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22.11.2024, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate in connected W.P.(C) Nos. 18783 & 18788 of 2014 produced the instruction provided by the RDC, Southern Division vide letter dtd.04.12.2024 enclosing therein the joint enquiry report submitted by the Addl. District Welfare Officer, Nabarangpur and Welfare Extension Officer, Tentulikhunti.

Basing on the instruction so provided learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that children of the present Petitioner have not availed any benefit of the certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, which has been cancelled by the Committee vide impugned order dtd.26.08.2014, so passed in FCC Case No. 13 of 2013.

Page 1 of 3.

Heard Ms. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

Even though the present writ petition has been filed challenging the final order dtd.26.08.2014 so passed in FCC No. 13 of 2013, but in course of hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that after such cancellation of the certificate, Petitioner has since been terminated from his service.

5.1. It is also contended that Petitioner will not raise any claim to get any service and financial benefit, from which he was dismissed nor he will assail such order of termination nor has assailed the same. It is also contended that children of the Petitioner have not availed any benefit by utilising the certificate so issued in his favour. It is accordingly contended that without interfering with the impugned order Petitioner be protected with regard to the direction contained in Para 6(iii) of the impugned order dt.26.08.2014.

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that this Court may pass appropriate order in the matter.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made and the fact that Petitioner will not claim any service or financial benefit nor he will challenge and/or has challenged the order of termination passed against him after such cancellation of the certificate and the fact that children of the Petitioner have not availed any benefit from out of the certificate which is not disputed, this Court while is not inclined to

Page 2 of 3.

interfere with the impugned order dt.26.08.2014, only direct that no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner in terms of the direction contained in Para 6(iii) of the impugned order.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

Sneha

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Dec-2024 17:08:51

Page 3 of 3.