Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 741 (ORI)

Jyotshnamayee Behera v. Member, Board of Revenue

2018-08-17

K.R.MOHAPATRA, S.PANDA

body2018
ORDER 17.8.2018. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate. Petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1911 of 2002.The Tribunal while disposing of the original application without granting relief to quash the order of termination observed that the order will not stand in the way of respondents to consider the case of re-engagement of the applicant as per law if she is still interested and makes an application to that effect within two months from the date of order. It is submitted at the Bar that earlier O.J.C. Nos.13767 & 13768 of 1998 disposed of by the order dated 6.11.1998 wherein it was directed that :- “ A list shall be prepared of such workers in respect of each Tahasils according to seniority and it should be duly published. When the work will be available, it shall be given strictly on the basis of seniority and no outsiders shall be appointed. A copy of the list shall also be sent to the Collector, who shall ensure that the above directions are properly implemented.” The applicant is the wife of one Prasanta Kumar Behera who was working as Chainman on job contract basis under Satyabadi Tahasil, Puri vide order dated 30.12.1997.After death of her husband on 16.6.1998 in a road accident she was appointed as a job contract Chainman vide order dated 31.12.1998. However while continuing as such by order dated 1.7.2002 she was disengaged from her job with effect from 30.6.2002. Being aggrieved by the termination she has approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.1911 of 2002 with a prayer to direct the authorities to reinstate her in service. The opposite parties in their counter before the Tribunal contended that the applicant directly applied to Land Reforms Commissioner for engagement. The L.R.C. appointed her against the post of Chainman without observing the required procedure and instructions given by the Finance Department and Revenue Department. It was further stand of the respondents before the Tribunal that Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is not applicable to job contract employees. Since the Land Reforms Commissioner engaged fresh job contract employees deviating the direction issued by this Court in O.J.C. Nos.13767 & 13768 of 1998 the termination order was issued. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the applicant engaged in the year 1997. Since the Land Reforms Commissioner engaged fresh job contract employees deviating the direction issued by this Court in O.J.C. Nos.13767 & 13768 of 1998 the termination order was issued. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the applicant engaged in the year 1997. As he was died by continuing as such, the applicant was engaged against a available vacancy which was clearly indicates from the engagement letter issued in favour of the applicant. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, as the husband of the applicant was continued as job contract employee his name should have empanelled and he would have been continued as work is available. However the authority taking into consideration the tragic death engaged the widow for survival of the family members. The Tribunal should have taken note of the said fact and directed for reengagement of the applicant while quashing the order of termination. The impugned order need be modified to that extent instead of passing such an order the Tribunal has observed that the authority may consider reengagement. The learned Addl. Government Advocate however supported the impugned order and submitted that the Land Reforms Commissioner has issued appointment order deviating the Finance Department instructions as well as the direction issued by this Court. It was also submitted that disciplinary action has been taken against the Land Reforms Commissioner for such action. However it is not disputed that the engagement of the applicant is not a fresh appointment rather in view of the death of the job contract employee his widow’s application was considered for survival of the family and engagement order was issued. From the impugned order it reveals that the Tribunal has taken note of the above fact however misread and misinterpreted of the engagement of the applicant as a fresh engagement even though her case is not similar to that of the other fresh engagement in respect of new persons binding the Finance Department instruction as well as the order of this Court. Rather the husband of the applicant was continued as a job contract employee and only the authority considered the application of the widow and issued engagement letter in her favour for survival of the family members which stand on a different footing than the fresh appointee. Rather the husband of the applicant was continued as a job contract employee and only the authority considered the application of the widow and issued engagement letter in her favour for survival of the family members which stand on a different footing than the fresh appointee. The Tribunal also considered the same issued direction for re-engagement of the applicant if work is available within a period of two months. This Court as well as the Apex Court while considering the question of great public importance who should be employed in the new project which come up in the State, whether the workers who had been engaged in similar projects earlier would have a right to claim employment in the new projects or whether employment in these projects should be made available to those who have not been able to get any employment elsewhere and are thus far below the poverty line observed that in the socialist Indian there cannot be ‘hiring and firing’ nor arbitrary termination of the services of workmen and benefit available to the employees conferred by Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are being made available by and large and further thought is being given to person concerned as to how best benefit can be made available to all persons employed. Considering the above fact and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, we modify the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to consider the reengagement of the applicant in Puri district. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks. The writ petition is disposed of. A free copy of the order be handed over to learned Addl. Government Advocate for compliance. Petition disposed of.