Disposed¶30

Gopinath Srichandan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 May 2024WP(C)/3378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Antedating; work charged establishment; Rural Development Department, Odisha; fresh representation; writ of mandamus; O.A.T. O.A. No.745 (c) of 2012; O.A.No.65 of 2015; Finance Department approval; similarly situated employees; WP(C) No.3378 of 2024; disposed of with liberty and time-bound directions; Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Odisha (Opposite Party No.1) within three weeks; the said authority to consider and dispose of it in accordance with law within eight weeks of filing and communicate the decision within two weeks thereafter, taking into consideration that similarly situated employees have already been given the relief claimed and their services antedated.

Gopinath Srichandan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to antedate the date of bringing him over to work charged establishment w.e.f. 11.02.2011 in terms of the learned Tribunal's order dated 27.10.2016 in O.A.No.65 of 2015 (Annexure-5), already implemented vide order dated 26.11.2021 (Annexure-7) and Annexure-8 series, with all consequential service and financial benefits. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned rejection order dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure-3), the Court observed that the Petitioner's representation and the grievance involved therein were not considered in the absence of approval from the Finance Department; considering the passage of more than a decade and the nature of disposal of the representation, the Court held that the matter required reconsideration by the Opposite Parties.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievance before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Odisha (Opposite Party No.1).

¶27

Key takeaways

If the fresh representation is filed within a period of three weeks, Opposite Party No.1 shall consider and dispose it of in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing, and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶29
While considering the representation, Opposite Party No.1 is directed to take into consideration the fact that similarly situated employees have been given the relief claimed by the Petitioner and their services in Work Charged establishment have already been antedated.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service matter — WP(C) No.3378 of 2024 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J., order dated 01.05.2024) — Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to antedate the date of his bringing over to work charged establishment w.e.f. 11.02.2011 in terms of the learned Tribunal's order dated 27.10.2016 in O.A.No.65 of 2015 (Annexure-5), already implemented by the Opposite Parties vide order dated 26.11.2021 (Annexure-7) and Annexure-8 series. The Court noticed that the impugned rejection order dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure-3), passed pursuant to the learned O.A.T.'s order dated 15.05.2012 in O.A. No.745 (c) of 2012, did not consider the Petitioner's representation for want of approval from the Finance Department, and that more than a decade had elapsed. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department (Opposite Party No.1) within three weeks, to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within eight weeks, the decision to be communicated within two weeks thereafter, with a further direction that the authority take into consideration that similarly situated employees have already been given the relief claimed and their services in Work Charged establishment antedated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.3378 of 2024

¶2

Gopinath Srichandan

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. - Nihal Rath

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1) State Of Odisha

¶8

Engr In Chief, Rural Work, Bbsr

¶9

Supdt. Engr, Rural Works Electrical Circle, Bbsr

¶10

..... Opposite Parties

¶11

Represented By Adv. – S.Das, A.G.A.

¶12

Executive Engr, Rural Works Electrical Div. Bbsr

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

01.05.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶21

The Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer :

¶22

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Application, issue Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Opp.Parties to antedate the date of bringing over the Petitioner to work charged establishment w.e.f. 11.02.2011 in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal dated 27.10.2016 passed in O.A.No.65 of 2015 under Annexure-5 which has already been implemented by

¶23

Page 1 of 3.

¶24

the Opp.Parties vide order dated 26.11.2021 under Annexurre-7 as well as implantation orders as at Annexure-8 series with all consequential service and financial benefits. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

¶25

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievance before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government Rural Development Department, Odisha, Opposite Party No.1 which may be considered within a stipulated period of time in accordance with law.

¶26

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that he has no objection if liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.1 and the same is considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶27

On perusal of the impugned rejection order dated 24.11.2012 under Annexure-3 which was passed in pursuant to the order dated 15.05.2012 by the learned O.A.T. in O.A. No.745 (c) of 2012, she is observed that the representation of the petitioner and the grievance involved therein, was not considered in the absence of the approval from the Finance Department. However, in the meantime more than decades of time has elapsed. Considering the passage of time and the nature of disposal of the representation, this Court deems it proper that the matter requires reconsideration by the Opposite Parties. In such view of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government Rural Development Department, Odisha, Opposite Party No.1 ventilating his grievance

¶28

Page 2 of 3.

¶29

within a period of three weeks. If such a representation is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the said Opposite Party No.1 in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing representation and the decision so taken on the representation of the petitioner be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. It is further directed that while considering the representation of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 shall take into consideration the fact that similarly situated employees have been given the relief claimed by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition and their services in Work Charged establishment has already been antedated.

¶30