Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3 (ORI)

Udayabhanu Mishra v. State of Orissa

2018-01-02

BISWANATH RATH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Heard Shri S.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri K.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-contesting opposite party nos.1 and 2 and Shri S. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3-Municipal Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation. 2. This writ petition is filed with a prayer for regularizing the petitioner’s service with effect from 17.05.1999 to 28.01.2000. 3. Taking this Court to the facts scenario involving the case of the petitioner, Shri Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant on N.M.R. basis in Cuttack Municipality, presently a Corporation in the year 1990, but the petitioner’s service was regularized along with similarly situated employees by virtue of Annexure-1 issued on 17.05.1999. But, in a subsequent development, the petitioner’s service was transferred from Cuttack Municipal Administration to Baripada Municipal Administration. Unfortunately, for a bad financial condition of the Baripada Municipality, the petitioner’s joining report was not accepted by the Baripada Municipality and the inability to accept the petitioner’s joining was communicated by the Baripada Municipality to the competent authority immediately vide their correspondence dated 29.05.1999. For the delayed action at the level of the State, particularly with the Secretary, H & U.D., the petitioner’s service was accepted in the Cuttack Municipality on a subsequent date of 28.01.2000. It is under the premises, it is contended by Shri Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is not responsible for joining with the Cuttack Municipality in time, rather for immediate effective steps by the competent authority, the petitioner’s joining report has been accepted at a later stage and, therefore, the petitioner should not be made to suffer for no fault of him. It is under the premises, Shri Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested this Court for issuing necessary direction to the competent authority for regularizing the service of the petitioner from 17.05.1999 instead of w.e.f. 28.01.2000. 4. Shri K.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-contesting opposite party nos.1 and 2 submitted that the inconvenience to the petitioner is for the reason of non-acceptance of his joining report by the Baripada Municipality on his transfer to Baripada Municipality in May, 1999, but, however, he admitted that ultimately the petitioner’s service was accepted by the Cuttack Municipality on 28.01.2000 on intervention of the State authority. 5. 5. Shri S. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3-Municipal Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation contended that the Cuttack Municipality is not responsible for the delayed acceptance of the joining report of the petitioner and delay, if any, caused for the delayed direction by the State authority. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the petitioner’s service was regularized pursuant to the direction of this Court in the month of May, 1999 and vide the notification issued under Annexure-1 dated 17.05.1999 the petitioner figures at Sl. No.137 of the list while regularizing the similarly situated persons. However, from perusal of the records, this Court also finds, for the reason best known to the State authority, the petitioner was transferred from Cuttack Municipality to Baripada Municipality and it is for the inconvenience at the Baripada Municipality end, the petitioner’s joining report/service could not be accepted by the Administration of Baripada Municipality as communicated through its communication dated 29.05.1999 appearing at Annexure-2. At this stage, it was the duty of the State authority, i.e., the Director, Municipal Administration and the Secretary concerned to place the service of the petitioner back immediately in the Cuttack Municipality or Municipal Corporation as existing then. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, the petitioner is suffering for no fault of him, on the other hand, for the delayed action by the Director, Municipal Administration as well as the Secretary concerned and the petitioner cannot be affected for no fault of him. As a result, this Court interfering in the rejection order at Annexure-18 set-aside the same and directs the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, opposite party no.3 as well as the opposite party no.1 to treat the petitioner to have been regularized on 17.05.1999 and release all the consequential service benefits within appropriate and reasonable time. 7. The writ petition succeeds. No costs.