Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Tapan Kumar Mohanty And Another on 12 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ORI 253
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
W.P.(C) No.3314 of 2017
In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.
---------
State of Odisha and Others ...... Petitioners.
- Versus-
Tapan Kumar Mohanty and Another ......Opposite Parties.
Counsel for Petitioners : Mr. M. S. Sahoo, Addl. Government
Advocate.
Counsel for Opp.Parties : M/s. S. Mallik and P.C. Das.
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE SANJU PANDA
&
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment : 12.07.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. N. Prasad, J.This writ petition is by the State of Odisha, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dtd.17.3.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.3480(C) of 2013 is under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal has directed the respondents to take a policy decision for up-gradation of service of the applicant and regularization within period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
2
2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that the applicant - opposite party herein, who is a Degree Holder Engineer in the Electrical Engineering, entitled and eligible to be appointed against the post of Assistant Engineer in the State. The recruitment, appointment and condition of service of Assistant Engineers in the State of Orissa are being controlled and regulated by the Odisha Services of Engineers‟ Rules, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules, 1941), the State Government did not conduct any recruitment for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers. The Degree Engineers were empanelled on the basis of year of pass-out of Degree Engineering and from the panel list, the Degree Engineers were appointed as Stipendiary Engineers on consolidated pay of Rs.2000/- per month. The applicant was also empanelled but not given any appointment as Stipendiary Engineer rather as ad hoc degree holder Engineer.
The Degree Engineers, who were appointed as Stipendiary Engineers, have been regularized as Assistant Engineers through a Validation Act by regularizing the provisions of mandate of Rule.
The State Government has passed a resolution on 12.3.1996 declaring that the Stipendiary Engineers shall be validated and appointed as Assistant Engineers by bringing a Validation Act. Before bringing such Validation Act to validate the appointment of Assistant Engineers, they shall be treated as ad hoc Assistant Engineers and shall be paid the salary of the post of Assistant Engineers. All the Degree Holder Engineers who were appointed as Stipendiary Engineers were paid regular pay scale with effect from 12.3.1996 and subsequently their services were validated through Validation Act. The Validation Act was challenged before this court and this court quashed the Validation Act on 3 the ground of discrimination as similarly situated persons were not validated. The State Government have moved an appeal before the Hon‟ble Apex Court which is still pending, as such the grievance of the petitioner that he being a Degree Holder Engineer be given similar treatment as that of the Stipendiary Engineers since he was appointed on daily wage basis vide order dtd.4.5.1993 on a consolidated amount of Rs.2000/- per month, subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.7000/-.
The concerned Executive Engineers and other functionaries, being the controlling authorities, have found the work satisfactory and on that very ground his case has already been recommended for absorption / regularization under the regular establishment. The authorities have recommended for absorbing him in service on the pretext that there are four sanction posts of Assistants Engineers meant for Degree Holder Engineers in Electrical discipline and all the posts are lying vacant.
The Finance Department of the State, instead of allowing absorption for appointment in the Energy Department, allowed to enhance the consolidated pay from Rs.2000/- to Rs.7000/- per month at par with other departments and directed that they would work under Rural Works Department and in pursuance to the said decision, the applicant has been allowed and now receiving the consolidated pay of Rs.7000/- per month though working against the post of Assistant Engineers since the year 1993.
The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the day when he has approached before it, he had already completed 14 years of service and since his performance was satisfactory, taking into consideration that aspect 4 of the matter he has been allowed to continue in service, but even though the posts are available in the Rural Works Department, he has not been taken under regular establishment which led him to file an original application before the tribunal being O.A. No.3480(C) of 2013.
The tribunal, after taking into consideration the long length of service, has passed an order directing the authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner under the regular establishment by taking a policy decision in this regard.
3. The State of Orissa, being aggrieved with the said decision, is before this court by way of the instant writ petition inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact by applying the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vrs. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 since in that case the matter relates to regularization of daily rated employee, but here the applicant is holding the post of Degree Holder Engineer, hence the ratio laid down in the case of Umadevi (3) is not applicable.
They further assailed the order on the ground that even the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal rendered in the case of Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 is not applicable.
4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party - applicant has vehemently opposed the arguments / grounds of the State of Odisha in assailing the order passed by the Tribunal by submitting that he has been appointed in the year 1993 on the basis of the panel prepared by the State of 5 Odisha for appointment of Degree Holder Engineers on ad hoc basis, subsequently the decision has been taken by the authorities to validate the services of such Degree Holder Engineers who have been inducted in service under the caption heading „Stipendiary Engineers‟ and for them the policy decision has been taken in the year 1996 that their services will be validated by a decision to be taken in this regard by the State of Odisha and in pursuance thereto decision was taken by enacting upon the Validation Act, 2002 whereby and where under all the ad hoc Degree Holder Engineers appointed as Stipendiary Engineers have been validated in their services, but very surprisingly the applicant, although was inducted in the panel list, has not been given the status of stipendiary engineer rather he has been allowed to continue in service by way of ad hoc Degree Holder Engineer in the Rural and Energy Department of the State and is not been taken in regular establishment.
He further submits that the Validation Act came for its judicial scrutiny before this court, this court however has struck down the Validation Act against which the State of Odisha has preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the Hon‟ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the Validation Act, 2002 has been promulgated by the State of Odisha for regularizing the services of Degree Holder Assistant Engineers who have been inducted in service as Stipendiary Engineers, the decision of the authority by promulgating the Validation Act, 2002 as a measure for regularization in service by way of enactment and the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (3), has reversed the order passed by this Court and has been pleased to hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Government in coming out with the Validation 6 Act, 2002 and thereby issued directed to validate the services of the engineers with effect from the date of issuance of Validation Act, 2002.
It has been submitted by him that when the services of the stipendiary engineers have been decided to be validated, hence he is also entitled to be given the same treatment since he is working as ad hoc engineer since the year 1993 and still he is discharging his duty to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned.
He submits that continuation of his service itself suggests that the department is in requirement of his service and he is continuing for last more than 24 years without any interim order having been passed by any court of law.
He submits that merely because the post is of the Degree Holder Engineer, it does not mean that the ratio laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (3) will not be applicable.
He, in this pretext has put reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others vrs. Kamal Prasad and Others, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
The facts which are not in dispute in this case are as follows:-
(i) The applicant / opposite party herein was appointed on daily wage basis vide order dtd.4.5.1993 on consolidated pay of Rs.2000/- per month. 7
(ii) His appointment was on the basis of a policy decision of the Government by taking decision with respect to the engagement of the Degree Holder Engineers against the post lying vacant, for that purpose a panel list has been prepared.
(iii) From the said panel list the Degree Holder Engineers have been appointed as Stipendiary Engineers but however, the applicant has not been given the status of Stipendiary Engineer but appointed as Degree Holder Engineer on daily wage basis on 4.5.1993.
(iv) The State of Orissa has appointed other Degree Holder Engineers under the caption heading "Stipendiary Engineers" from the panel list in which the name of the applicant was also appearing, the State Government, in order to validate the services of the Stipendiary Engineers, has come out with a statute known as Orissa Services of Engineers (Validation of Appointment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act, 2002‟) for regularizing the appointment of Stipendiary Engineers working as ad hoc Assistant Engineers.
(v) The said Validation Act has been questioned by the regular Assistant Engineers working under the department before this court, this court, after considering the backdoor entry, has struck down the statutory provision as contained in the Validation Act, 2002 which subsequently been challenged by the aggrieved party before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and Others Vrs. State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 583 wherein Hon‟ble Apex court has been 8 pleased to allow the writ petition to the limited extent that the services of the writ petitioners and all those who are similarly situated and promoted as ad hoc Assistant Engineers against the proposed 5% quota reserved for in-service Jr. Engineers degree holders shall stand regularized with effect from the date of the Validation Act, 2002 came into force. The services of the Stipendiary Engineers have been regularized by virtue of the order passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. In the said judgment the Hon‟ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the intent behind issuance of the Validation Act, 2002 by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (3) wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that the Government in its discretion, may regularize the services of ad hoc appointees in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Umadevi (3) on the basis of decision to be taken in the light of proposition laid down at paragraph 53 of the said judgment and the State Government can adopt the method by making a Legislation in this regard. Considering this aspect of the matter Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to allow the writ petition directing to validate the services of ad hoc engineers.
It is evident from the judgment rendered in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (supra) that the Hon‟ble Apex Court has taken note of the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (3) and the length of service vis-à-vis the requirement of their services under different establishments of the Government and the foremost intent of the Government to continue them in service as per its requirement.
9
(vi) The applicant has completed 24 years of service on the date when the Tribunal has passed the order that ad hoc engineers although not taken under the parameter of stipendiary engineers, different authorities have recommended for his absorption in service and the matter has been referred before the Finance Department, but the Finance Department instead of regularizing him under regular establishment, has enhanced the consolidated sum from Rs.2000/- to Rs.7000/-.
In the light of these admitted position, we intend to scrutinize the finding given by the Tribunal.
6. Before scrutinizing the finding given by the Tribunal, it needs to refer the authoritative pronouncements in this regard. The judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (3) of which para 53 is being referred herein below:-
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in the case of State of Mysore Vrs. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128, R. N. Nanjundappa Vrs. T. Thimiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B. N. Nagarjan Vrs. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of t he services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any, already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."10
The other judgment rendered in the case of Nihal Singh and Others Vrs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 wherein the case of Special Police Officer was involved and for his regularization the Hon‟ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration the requirement of the work and considering the ratio laid down in the case of Umadevi (3), has been pleased to direct the State of Punjab to consider the case of the appellant by creating supernumerary posts.
In the case of State of Jharkhand and Others Vrs. Kamal Prasad and Others (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of engineers who have been said to be illegally appointed, directed to regularize the services of the engineers taking into consideration their long length of service after taking note of the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (3).
In the case of Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar and Others (supra) similar view has been taken by Hon‟ble Apex Court for regularization of service of irregular appointees considering the long length of service.
In the case of Sitikantha Mishra Vrs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 670 the issue fell for consideration regarding regularization of professors who have been appointed on contract basis and the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to direct for regularization of their services on the basis of subsequent retrospective sanction of the post but, however, regarding consideration on the issue of lien the matter has been directed to be considered by the authorities.
11
7. We, after going through the judgments rendered in various cases referred to above, have found that the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (3) has permitted regularization of irregular appointments and not illegal appointments.
As to what would constitute an irregular appointment has been considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in another judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vrs. M.L. Kesari and Others, reported in 2010 9 SCC 247 wherein this issue has been examined and the principle regarding regularization as enunciated in Umadevi (3) case has been explained. The decision in that case provides the three essential requirements for regularization, those are:-
(i) The employees must have worked for 10 years or more; (ii) They have so worked in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or
protection of interim order of any court or tribunal; and
(iii) They should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment.
Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualified for regularization. In this regard para 7 of the judgment needs to be referred:-
"7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularization" enunciated in Umadevi (3), if the following conditions are fulfilled:12
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."
It is further evident that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while considering the irregular / illegal appointment in Umadevi (3) case, did not disturb the appointments already made or regularization granted, as because the decision itself permitted regularization in case of irregular appointments.
In the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (supra) the degree holder engineers have been appointed in different departments of the State Government. Those ad hoc Engineers have been appointed as Stipendiary Engineers and for such category of employees the Government has come out with a Legislation known as Odisha Service of Engineers (Validation of Appointment) Act, 2002 by which appointment of 881 ad hoc Asst. Engineers belonging to Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Wings of the State Engineering Service have been validated.
However, a coordinate bench of this Court has struck down the Legislation on the ground that the same violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the writ petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The matter went before Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while delivering judgment in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (supra), has 13 taken note of the fact that the enactment deals with the Law relating to regularization of incumbents holding public office on ad hoc / temporary basis much in the same way as regularization of such temporary appointments is ordered in terms of a scheme for that purpose. The only difference is that while regularization scheme can be framed by the Government in exercise of its executive power, the regularization ordered in the case related to Validation Act, is by way of a Legislation, as such the Hon‟ble apex court was of the view that what would be achieved by the Government in exercise of its executive power could certainly be achieved by Legislation and thereby has been pleased to validate the services of the stipendiary engineers with effect from the date of notification of the Validation Act, 2002.
8. The fact of the case in hand is that the appellant / opposite party has been appointed as ad hoc Assistant Engineer on daily rated basis in the year 1993 from the same panel list from which the Stipendiary Engineers have been appointed, whose services have been directed to be validated by the State Government by virtue of the Validation Act, 2002 which ultimately has been approved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (supra).
The case in hand wherein the applicant has also put 24 years of service as on date. The authorities have recommended for regularization of his service. The Finance Department although has not concurred with the recommendation for regularization but however has enhanced the consolidated salary from Rs.2000/- to Rs.7000/-.
14
We have gathered from the decision of the State Authorities by which the consolidated sum has been enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.7000/- that the Government is in need of the service of the applicant / opposite party and that is the reason, even as on today he is allowed to continue in service and thereby putting 24 years of continuous service.
9. The State of Odisha has challenged the order of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the applicant cannot take advantage of the judgment rendered in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra since therein the subject matter of the validation of service is of the Stipendiary Engineers while the applicant has never been given the status of stipendiary engineer.
So far as this argument, since we have already expressed herein above that the applicant has also been engaged as ad hoc Asst. Engineer on daily rated basis from the panel from which the Stipendiary Engineers have been appointed on ad hoc basis whose services have been validated by virtue of Validation Act, 2002, the applicant has also rendered 24 years of continuous service as on date, as such merely on account of the fact that the Government has not taken the service of the applicant under the category of Stipendiary Engineer, the applicant cannot be discriminated.
The other ground has been taken by the State of Odisha that the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar (supra), this submission has been made on the basis of the fact that the subject matter in the case of Amarkant Rai is related to daily rated casual employees. He further submits that even in the case of Umadevi 3 the matter 15 pertains to legality and propriety of the engagement of daily rated employee but herein the services of the applicant relates to Assistant Engineer, as such the judgment rendered in these two cases are not applicable and the Tribunal, by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Amarkant Rai, has committed error.
We are not in agreement with such argument of the State of Odisha for the reason that although the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (3) is related to daily rated employee but the principle has been laid down at paragraph 53 which we have already discussed.
So far as the case of Amarkant Rai the same is also related to daily rated employee but the principle laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umadevi 3 has taken note in the said judgment.
Further the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra, has put reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi 3 wherein in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra the subject matter of regularization is for the post of degree holder Assistant Engineers but even in that case the principle laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi 3 has been taken note by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while approving the decision of the Government regarding legislating the Validation Act, 2002 for regularization of their services.
Further even in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others vrs. Kamal Prasad and Others (supra) where the case relates to the legality and propriety of the appointment as Jr. Engineers appointed 16 in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar in which the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission was not taken, as such their services have been said to be irregular and the Government has removed them from service, against which writ petition has been filed wherein the learned Single Judge has held that the power by which the services of the employees in the case is not available with the State Government of Jharkhand that is to pass unilateral order directing the respondent employees to go back to the State of Bihar, which action has been held not in consonance with Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. This was impugned in the Letters Paten Appellate Jurisdiction of Hon‟ble Jharkhand High Court wherein the division bench of the High Court of Jharkhand has observed that it is open to the appropriate authorities having power to take reasonable decision after issuing notices to the employees with regard to final allocation of power in accordance with law. The State Government of Jaharkhand had interpreted the order as direction to it and it had terminated the services of the employees, accordingly notices have been issued to them, subsequently their services have been terminated, the order of termination were questioned by the employees by filing Interlocutory Application in the Letters Patent Appeal questioning the propriety, correctness and legality of the order of termination passed against them, in the Letters Patent Appeal, the division bench of Hon‟ble Jharkhand High Court has passed an interim order directing the appellants to maintain status quo and the respondent employees were allowed to work in the post, the Latters Patent Appellate Court, by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka vrs. Umadevi (3), has held that if the person has served for 10 years or more, then it is the duty of the State Government to consider his case 17 for regularization in the post. The said conclusion has been reached by relying on Articles 309, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The division bench has further referred to the judgment rendered in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra) wherein it has been held that Umadevi (3) casts a duty upon the State Government to take a step to regularize the service of those irregularly appointees, who have served for more than 10 years without the benefit or protection of any interim order. Further in the said case, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has clearly ordered that one time settlement / measure should be taken without 6 months i.e. from 10.4.2006. Therefore the division bench of Jharkhand High Court has accepted the same and came to conclusion that the claim of the employees for regularization in their post are fit cases and they became unfortunate only because of creation of State of Jharklhand over which the employees had no control and could not have prevented creation of State of Jharkhand and because of that reason only one State cannot take a different stand with respect to the employees appointed by the same process. The State Government cannot throw the employs jobless after 30 years of continuous service in public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India which would result in great injustice since their source of income will be taken away and thereby the employees and their family will suffer due to arbitrary action of the State Government of Jharkhand which deprives a person of his right and liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The judgment rendered by the division bench of Jharkhand High Court was subject matter before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand vrs. Kamal Prasad (supra) and the Hon‟ble Apex Court, after taking 18 note of the judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (3), the proposition laid down at paragraph 53 of the said judgment and also taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of Olga Tellis Vrs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545, has held at paragraph 32 as follows:-
"32. Further, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that similarly situated employees are continuing in service in the State Government of Bihar. Therefore, the relief sought by the respondent employees of continuation in service, clearly takes care of all the hurdles coming in their way. The Division Bench of the High Court is of the considered opinion that the employees' services should have been regularized, but on the other hand, the appellant State Government, during pendency of the letters patent appeals, has terminated their services. The same cannot be a hurdle for it and it would not come in the way of the appellant State Government for grant of relief in favour of the respondent employees."
According to our considered view the contention raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of Odisha that the case of Umadevi (3) or the judgment rendered in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra which is based upon the proposition laid down in the case of Umadevi (3) cannot be said to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case since the post involved in the case in hand is of the Assistant Engineers wherein in the case of Umadevi (3) or Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra, the post is of daily rated, is not acceptable to us in view of judgment rendered in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (supra) and State of Jharkhand vrs. Kamal Prasad (supra) wherein even though posts are of the Assistant Engineers or the Jr. Engineers, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has taken note of the proposition laid down in the case of Umadevi (3) and directed for regularization of service taking into consideration long length of service.
19
Herein also the applicant / opposite party has rendered continuous service of 24 years without aid of any interim order passed by this court and has been appointed under the policy decision of the Government against the vacancy, moreover, the other similarly situated persons have already got their services validated considering the long length of service of 22 years, as would be evident from the judgment rendered in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (supra) hence taking different view would be very harsh for the appellant.
10. We, in the light of the discussion having been made herein above, have examined the order passed by the Tribunal and are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not erred in passing the impugned order.
According to us there is no error apparent on the face of record, rather the order is in the light of the proposition laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases referred herein above, hence we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
In the result, the writ petition fails and dismissed.
......................... .........................
S.N.Prasad, J. Sanju Panda, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th July, 2017/Manas