Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 389 (ORI)

State of Odisha v. Hiralal Meher

2015-07-01

BISWANATH RATH, D.H.WAGHELA

body2015
JUDGMENT : D.H. Waghela, J. Heard Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-petitioners. 2. The State has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to call into question the order dated 09.05.2014 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 4120 (C) of 2013. 3. After the petition being argued at some length, when the writ petition was to be dismissed as not pressed, at the request of learned Additional Government Advocate, it was suggested that the Court should dispose of the matter on merit. Therefore, a judgment is called for. 4. If the State Government fights against one of its Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) employees since 1980, what fate awaits the employee caught in the cross fire between two departments is exemplified by this case. The facts of the case are indeed very simple but highly instructive. The opposite party No. 1-workerwas engaged since 01.01.1980 in the Main-Dam Division and his name appeared at Sl. No. 46 in the gradation list of NMRs communicated by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Executive Engineer, Main-Dam Division, Burla. The opposite party No.1 was implicated in a criminal case during case during his continuance in the NMR establishment and was disengaged and reinstated in the year 2001. By that time, many other junior employees on the NMR were taken to the Work Charged Establishment, while the service of the opposite party No. 1 on the NMR was ignored. The Government of Odisha vide their letter dated 13.12.2012 directed the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar that past service of the opposite party No.1-applicant was to be taken into account for consideration of bringing him over to the Work Charged Establishment. It was, therefore, directed that a proposal with detailed particulars of the opposite party No. 1 should be furnished. Even thereafter, the stand on behalf of the State Government, the opposite party No.1 could not be considered. However, as expressly recorded in the impugned order, the Tribunal was requested to dispose of the original application on the basis of the submission made by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 applicant without expressing any opinion on merit. 5. Even thereafter, the stand on behalf of the State Government, the opposite party No.1 could not be considered. However, as expressly recorded in the impugned order, the Tribunal was requested to dispose of the original application on the basis of the submission made by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 applicant without expressing any opinion on merit. 5. It was on such basis that the Tribunal did not find any case for the petitioner herein and still a conditional order was made to direct that, if any NMR employee junior to opposite party No. 1 were brought over to Work Charged Establishment, the State was directed to bring over the opposite party No. 1 to Work Charged Establishment in the scale of pay applicable to Work Charged employees with effect from the date his juniors were brought over to the Work Charged Establishment, taking into consideration the communication dated 10.05.2012 of the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha and the letter dated 13.12.2012 of the Government of Odisha. 6. Even such order is called into question in the present writ petition, without any valid argument or justification, while admittedly the opposite party No. 1 has practically completed 35 years of his service and mere issuance of the notice herein would mean few more years of costly litigation for him. It cannot be believed that whoever is inspiring or sponsoring such litigation could not know the consequences of initiating the legal process against an employee who remains on the Nominal Muster Roll for 35 years, continues in the service on the same terms and, in spite of the express direction vide letter dated 13.12.2012, suffers one after the other rounds of litigation. These facts lead to an inescapable conclusion that some individual officer of senior rank is inspiring or initiating such course of action which amounts to gross abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, at the instance of the Court, a message needs to go to instill a sense of seriousness and responsibility among the officers who, by their sheer adamant attitude or non-application of mind, cast unnecessary burden of deciding non-issues upon the Court so as to further drain the limited resource and time available with the judiciary. Therefore, at the instance of the Court, a message needs to go to instill a sense of seriousness and responsibility among the officers who, by their sheer adamant attitude or non-application of mind, cast unnecessary burden of deciding non-issues upon the Court so as to further drain the limited resource and time available with the judiciary. In spite of our repeated request, learned Additional Government Advocate has not named any particular officer as responsible but submitted that it was the Finance Department which had raised objection against implementation of the Government's own order contained in the letter dated 13.12.2012. Such inter-departmental conflict or rivalry appears to have cost a poor employee the benefit to which his family would have been entitled since long. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) which shall be paid by the petitioner to the Odisha State Legal Services Authority within a period of fifteen days from today and the amount so paid shall be recovered from the officer who may be found after appropriate enquiry to be responsible for initiating the present litigation either by express order or by non-application of mind. The impugned order shall now be implemented at the earliest and latest by the end of July, 2015. Petition dismissed.