Disposed

Jayanti Baral v. Ceo, (Tpcodl)

Orissa HC12 Sept 2024WP(C)/7203/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a disengaged legal practitioner against the successor distribution company. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the respondent for reconsideration of re-employment with required documents.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to approach the opposite party with a representation and documents within fifteen days and allowing the opposite party two months to consider the plea.

Jayanti Baral Vs Ceo, (Tpcodl) — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7203 of 2021

¶2

Jayanti Baral …. Petitioner

¶3

Ms. Babita Kumari Pattanaik, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Chief Executive Officer, Tata Power …. Opposite Parties Central Odisha Distribution Limited (TPCODL), Bhubaneswar & others

¶6

Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Advocate along with

¶7

Mr. Abit Sahoo, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER 12.09.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

Heard Ms. Babita Kumari Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, learned counsel along with Mr. Abit Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

¶15

The petitioner, who is a Law Graduate and Legal Practitioner, faced a selection test to the post of Executive (Legal), Puri Electrical Division under the establishment of Feedback Energy Distribution Company Private Limited (FEDCO), Puri, a Franchisee Company of Central Electricity Supply Utility (CESU) on 07.07.2014. By discharging his duties as assigned to her by the Franchisee Company, i.e., FEDCO, her tenure of service was stated to be completed on 30.06.2020 vide Office Order No.000545 dated 01.06.2020. Accordingly, the order of disengagement was issued by

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

DGM-HCD of FEDCO on 01.06.2020. In the disengagement letter vide Annexure-4 it has been stated, inter-alia, as follows:-

¶18

“ xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx

¶19

We are committed to offer the best possible opportunities to you and have already initiated efforts to explore possibilities of your engagement within FEDCO for our existing and upcoming projects. Your candidature would be preferred provided suitable vacancy arises which matches with your qualification, linguistic skills, experience and designation.

¶20

However, in an event we exhaust all possibilities of aligning you to a new project in or outside the State, our association will have to come to an end by 30^th June, 2020 as per the terms of your employment contract with FEDCO. We recognize the impact of this situation that will have on you personally & professionally.”

¶21

It is submitted by Ms. Babita Kumari Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Section 2(27) read with Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it has become mandatory for the CESU to engage Franchisee. The Franchisee having employed the petitioner, the new Company, i.e., Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Limited (TPCODL), which has taken over CESU, is required to consider the case of the petitioner for re-engagement. The petitioner, in fact, challenged the order of disengagement dated 01.06.2020 before this Court by way of filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.15830 of 2020, wherein this Court vide order dated 15.07.2020 directed the petitioner to approach the authority concerned with representation before the FEDCO. It is further submitted by Ms. Pattanaik, learned counsel that by the time the order dated 15.07.2020 was passed, the TPCODL has already taken over CESU with effect from 01.06.2020, wherefore, the petitioner

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

filed I.A. No.8676 of 2020 and this Court vide order dated 13.11.2020 modified the order dated 15.07.2020 to the extent that the petitioner would file representation along with a copy of the brief highlighting her grievances before the CO, TPCODL within fifteen working days. Accordingly, having approached the TPCODL, the Authority, i.e., General Manager (HR) of TPCODL having afforded personal hearing to the petitioner, has communicated decision by a letter dated 29.01.2021 issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-2, the contents of which run as follows:-

¶24

“ xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

¶25

In reference to the aforesaid cited subject and pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, it is hereby conveyed to you that an appearance / chance of personal hearing was given to you on 28-122020 in order to give you the opportunity for placing your grievance. Prior to that you had also submitted your written representation.

¶26

In the said application, you have submitted that you were working as a “legal executive” of FEDCO under Puri Electrical Division for past six years. It’s an admitted position that you had an Employer-Employee relationship with FEDCO and not with TPCODL. Further, it is needless to state that TPCODL has not given any termination letter to you nor is a privy to the contract between you and FEDCO. Therefore, the question of addressing the dispute raised by you in respect of your reinstatement does not arise.

¶27

In our personal hearing you had also reiterated the same facts and requested to consider your case on humanitarian grounds. It is to inform you that TPCODL is a separate organization and has not taken over/acquired any stakes of FEDCO nor has entered into any understanding or agreement of any nature to induct the employees of FEDCO. Further TPCODL has its own service rules and separate code for selection of candidates. Therefore your prayer of impleading TPCODL in place of FEDCO was totally misconceived. Henceforth, your prayer concerned at present has no nexus and it is pointless for

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

impleading TPCODL as party before the Hon’ble High Court. In your representation you have averred that FEDCO no longer exists which is also misconceived as FEDCO continues to exist though it has no relationship whatsoever with TPCODL.

¶30

Accordingly, it is informed that as on date we have no vacancy as per your academic qualifications and if any vacancy shall arise in future you have your discretion to apply and we will be happy to consider you if your qualification matches to our criteria for the job and the selection procedure of the Company.”

¶31

Ms. Babita Kumari Pattanaik, learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid letter was of the year 2021 and in the meantime three more years have been elapsed. Even though there exists certain vacancies commensurate with the educational qualification of the petitioner, the opposite parties are now required to consider their own commitment. Therefore, she submitted that there is no impediment for the authority concerned to re-consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶32

Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, learned counsel along with Mr. Abit Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties referred to paragraphs-7 and 11 of the counter affidavit, which read thus:-

¶33

“ 7. That in reply to averments made in paragraph No.3 and 4 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that as per the documents attached with the writ petition it seems M/S. FEDCO, Puri had appointed Smt. Jayanti Barala vide their letter dated 7^th July 2014. This was in no manner linked to CESU. It may be noted here that, as per the Para 11.1.1 of the agreement the DF shall be responsible for recruitment of employee(s) at its own choice. Under no circumstances the employee(s) of the DF shall be considered as CESU employee and claim remuneration at par with CESU employee(s). The DF shall make it clear to the employee(s) engaged by him that they are its employee(s) and CESU has nothing to do with employment or any other claim.

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

Only the persons expressly agreeing to these conditions shall be employed by the DF. CESU will not be responsible or liable for the claim raised by the employee(s) of the DF and the DF shall indemnify CESU in respect thereof. Moreover, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the termination letter dated 01.06.2020 vide Annexure-4 has been given to Smt. Jayanti Baral by M/s. FEDCO, Puri. So, the erstwhile CESU had nothing to do with this matter nor had any privity of contract with the petitioner. For better appreciation of this Hon’ble Court the relevant portion of the Para.11.1.1 of the said DF agreement is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/1.

¶36

Xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx

¶37

11. That accordingly GM(HR), TPCODL in his reply addressed to Smt. Jayanti Baral vide letter No.1457 dated 29.01.2021 informed, “as on date we have no vacancy as per your Academic qualification and if any vacancy arises in future you are at liberty to apply and we well be happy to consider as your candidature if qualification matches to our criteria for the job and the selection procedure of the company.”

¶38

Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the General Manager (HR) of TPCODL, opposite party no.2 has realized the plight of the employees like the petitioner on account of taking over of CESU. However, he acknowledges the services of the petitioner rendered to the organization and her association with CESU through FEDCO. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the letter dated 29.01.2021 vide Annexure-2 where the General Manager (HR) of TPCODL, opposite party no.2 has clearly stated that the company will be “happy to consider” her case for reengagement on being satisfied with the qualification which matches the criteria for the job subject to selection procedure of the

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

company. In such view of the matter, keeping the matter pending would not enure to the benefit of either of the parties.

¶41

Therefore, this Court, while disposing of this writ petition, instructs the petitioner to approach the General Manager (HR) of TPCODL, opposite party no.2 within a period of fifteen days from today with a comprehensive representation enclosing photocopies of testimonials along with a certified copy of this order. In the event, the petitioner approaches the opposite party no.2, as aforesaid, he may take a considerate view in terms of letter dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-2) and do the needful within a period of two months from the date of furnishing the comprehensive representation by the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶43

MRS

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANORANJAN SAMAL Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2024 19:17:30

¶46

Page 6 of 6

Jayanti Baral v. Ceo, (Tpcodl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti Baral v. Ceo, (Tpcodl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Chandra Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Bikash Bihari Prusty Vs State of Odisha

Itishree Nath Vs Bank of Baroda

Kanchan Mishra Vs Golakha Ch.Swain

Dhirendra Kumar Das Vs Union of India

Santosh Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha