Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 134 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Balakrishna Sarangi

2006-02-16

I.M.QUDDUSI, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2006
ORDER O.J.C. No. 6163 of 2000 O.J.C. No. 6164 of 2000 O.J.C. No. 6165 of 2000 And O.J.C. No. 6162 of 2000. 16.2.2006 Heard learned counsel for the parties. These four writ petitions are filed at the instance of the State against the judgments and orders dated 15.03.2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in four Original Applications, which were disposed of by the Tribunal by separate decisions, setting aside ‘the orders of compulsory retirement of the opposite parties from service with direction to reinstate them on their respective position with all consequential finan¬cial and service benefits. Balakrishna Sarangi, the opposite party in OJC No.6163 of 2000 had filed O.A. No. 280 of 1995, Nabakrishna Sahu, the opposite party in OJC No.6164 of 2000, had filed O.A. No.2239 of 1994, Bijaya Kumar Mohanty(B), the opposite party in OJC No.6165 of 2000, had filed O.A. No.2196 of 1994 and Adhiraj Mohan Senapati, the opposite party in OJC No.6162 of 2000, had filed O.A. No. 2226 of 1994. Since in all the above cases, the orders of compulsory retirement were passed on the decision of the common review committee, they are being taken up together and dispose of by this common order. All the opposite parties were working as Executive Engineers in the erstwhile Irrigation and Power Department. The Tribunal has held in its impugned judgments and orders that the constitu¬tion of review committee was not proper. Since the impugned orders of compulsory retirement are based on the recommendation of the review committee, which was not a review committee under the law, as no Chief Engineer was available therein and only the person who was sitting as a member of the review committee was a Chief Engineer who was given re-employment after his superannua¬tion, but his designation was Chairman-cum-Managing Director, OPGC, such orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned Additional Government Advocate has placed reli¬ance upon the order dated 24th November, 1987 of the Government in the General Administration Department regarding composition of review committees in different departments, according to which, for the departments related to Irrigation and Power, the composi¬tion of the review committee is as follows : (1) Additional Development Commissioner (Chairman); (2) Secretary of the Government concerned (Member); (3) Chief Engineer concerned (Member); and (4) Director of Mining & Geology (Member). We have perused the records, from which we have noticed that review committee comprised of the following Chairman and Members, who had sent their recommendations to the Government. (1) Development Commissioner & Additional Chief Secretary; (2) Principal Secretary, Department of Energy (3) Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board, (4) Chief Engineer, Electrical Power Project, Planning and Development. (5) Chief Engineer, Electricity-cum-Chief Engineer, Electri¬cal Projects, (6) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, OPGC, and (7) Chief Electrical Inspector. In view of the above composition of the review committee, which is not disputed, it appears that there were seven members therein out of whom the Development Commissioner and the Secretary of the Department concerned were the valid members in accordance with the above-mentioned Government Order dated 24.11.1987. The rest of the members, i.e., Chief Engineer, Elec¬tricity-cum-Chief Engineer, Electrical Projects, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa Power General Corporation, Chief Engi¬neer, Electrical Power Project,Planning & Development, Chief Electrical Inspector, and Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board are strangers or may be said to be unauthorized persons and they were in majority. It is also to be noticed that the Director of Mining and Geology and Chief Engineer of the concerned depart¬ment, i.e., Chief Engineer. Power Department, were not present in the review committee. Therefore, it may be easily said that since the committee was formed contrary to the procedure laid down by the Government Order, the recommendation of the same has no mean¬ing under law. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, we uphold the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal. However, this will not preclude the petitioners from constituting a proper review committee as per the aforementioned Government Order and review the service records of the opposite parties, in case the opposite parties or any of them is still in service. Mr. P. K. Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party in OJC No.6162 of 2000, has informed us that the opposite party in that case died on 22.1.2004. In this regard, a memo was filed by one of the legal heirs of the deceased-opposite party on 22.06.2004, but no steps were taken by the petitioner to substi¬tute the legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, OJC No.6162 of 2000 stands abated and is dismissed as such. The remaining writ petitions are also dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. Petition dismissed.