Orissa High Court
Sanjay Mishra vs The Secretary on 12 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9847 of 2024
Sanjay Mishra ..... Petitioner
In Person
-versus-
The Secretary, Ministry of ..... Opposite Parties
Skill Development and Mr. P. K. Parhi,
Entrepreneurship, New DSGI along with Mr.
Delhi & Ors. S. S. Kashyap, Sr.
Panel Counsel
Ms. Sulochana Patra,
CGC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 12.03.2025
09. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties to conduct a review meeting by a third party arbitration or by formation of a special investigation team for providing an opportunity to the Petitioner to justify that the reasoned order dated 30.03.2021 issued by the Regional Directorate of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Odisha Ministry of Skill Development and Employment/Annexure-2 being incorrect and Page 1 of 6. illogical and to perverse the same for further proceedings regarding the pertinent claims.
3. The Petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company and a registered Vocational Training Provider (VTP) for conducting Modular employable skills (MBS) training under Skill development initiative scheme (SDIS) under DGET, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi through the Regional Directorate RDAT and now the same is being under the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (MSDE) Government of India.
4. The Petitioner has conducted MES training in Odisha as VTP during the year 2009 & 2010. After successful completion of the training assessment of trainees, the NCVT (National Council for Vocational Training) certificates with the result sheet of trainees were awarded/distributed by Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training. After completion of the training, the Petitioner raised the bill to RDAT for reimbursement of training fee as per the norms of the implementation manual of MBS followed during the process of training.
5. Thereafter, the Petitioner pursued with all the concerned authorities seeking release of pending bill Page 2 of 6. amount. But the same was delayed even after the disbursement was made by DGET to Odisha State Directorate DTE&T. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing W.P(C) No.23122 of 2012.
6. After several hearings and counter affidavit filed by all the parties, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 03.03.2021 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to settle the claims of the Petitioner and pass a reasoned order for settlement of claim amounts within a period of one month.
7. In response to the said order, a team was constituted and a meeting was held on 25.03.2021 in which all the claim amount statement and supporting documents were furnished by the Petitioner. But, the team without going into the depth of the matter, hastily returned a reasoned order for not to release the payment.
8. In the said order, many illogical and irrelevant reasons were mentioned. The order provided by the Opposite Parties is against the spirit of the order of this Court.
9. The hearing for passing of the said order was concluded by the opposite parties in a day and during the Page 3 of 6. hearing, the Petitioner had submitted all the documents as demanded by the Opposite Parties. But the order was passed totally contradictory to the facts provided. Moreover, those points were never raised during the previous Writ Petition, but the same are reflected only to create confusion and by creating this confusion they have the desire to succeed in holding the payment.
10. Thereafter, in order to avoid legal proceedings, the Petitioner once again submitted a request to the Minister, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship for review of incorrect order provided by MSDE team in order to justify by furnishing the documents that all statements in the reasoned order are incorrect.
11. Thereafter, the request letter was forwarded to the Secretary MSDE i.e Opposite Party No.l. But the same was not considered for two years stating that the same is under consideration by MSDE team. Thereafter, due to prolonged delay for review of the reasoned order, the Petitioner filled the grievance before the PMO central grievance portal CPGRAM and after pursuing for several months, the Petitioner was asked to submit the request to the RDSDE, Bhubaneswar. However, after pursuing for several times, a letter from MSDE to the Petitioner was issued stating that the request for review of reasoned Page 4 of 6. order is denied. This clearly reflects the intention and mis-governance of MSDE, Government of India to stop the pending claimed payments since the Opposite Parties are aware of the fact that the reasoned order is wrongly provided. The Petitioner is suffering and struggling to get justice since last fourteen years. Now the Petitioner has become frustrated for the illogical and unethical approach of Government and having no other alternative than to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking appropriate reliefs under Articles 226 of the constitution of India.
12. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
13. Considering the disputed question of facts and the unacceptability of the claims by the Union of India, this Court finds that the claim of the Petitioner has not been cleared by the Department of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of India. This Court being a Writ Court cannot decide the factual dispute which requires leading of evidence.
14. In view of the above, this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Director General (Training), DGT, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Directorate General of Training, New Delhi/ Opposite Party No.2 within a period of three Page 5 of 6. weeks from today along with all the documents which support his claim. In such event, the Director General (Training), DGT, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Directorate General of Training, New Delhi/ Opposite Party No.2 shall give the Petitioner a personal audience for putting forth his claim by producing the required documents and after giving a personal audience, the said authority shall pass a reasoned order within one week thereafter.
15. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 18-Mar-2025 18:13:35 Page 6 of 6.