Orissa High Court
Pradip Kumar Chhatria vs State Of Odisha And on 22 July, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C(OAC) No.838 of 2017
Pradip Kumar Chhatria .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
22.07.2024 Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order dated 17.08.2016, so issued by the O.P. No.2 under Annexure-6. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of RACP was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 10 (ten) years of regular service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was appointed as a driver with regular scale of pay vide office order dated 25.07.1996, so issued by the O.P. No.2 under Annexure-1. Subsequently, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on // 2 // 06.01.2012 in O.A. No.1108(C) of 2001, petitioner was reposted to Barkote Panchayat Samiti in the existing vacancy vide order dated 24.03.2012 under Annexure-
2. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner was originally appointed as against regular post vide order dated 25.07.1996 under Annexure-1 and subsequently in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, he was reposted vide order dated 24.03.2012 under Annexure-2, his initial date of appointment should be taken as 25.07.1996 and accordingly he became eligible to get the benefit of RACP.
4.2. It is further contended that on such reposting of the petitioner vide order dated 24.03.2012, vide order issued under Annexue-3, petitioner's initial date of appointment was taken as 29.07.1996 and his next increment was held admissible on 29.07.1997 by BDO, Barkote. It is also contended that taking his initial date of appointment as 29.07.1996, petitioner's pay was also re-fixed vide order issued under Annexure-4 by the selfsame BDO, Barkote.
4.3. It is also contended that in the service book enclosed vide Annexure-A to the counter, date of entry of the petitioner into Govt. service was reflected as 29.07.1996. It is accordingly contended that since in all Page 2 of 5 // 3 // the documents available at Annexure-3 and 4 and Annexure-A to the counter, date of entry of the petitioner into Govt. service is indicated as 29.07.1996, the ground on which the claim of the petitioner was rejected while rejecting the claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of RACP is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, so filed by O.P. No.2. It is contended that though the petitioner vide order under Annexure-1 was appointed as against the post of driver vide order dated 25.07.1996 but when he was not allowed to continue w.e.f. 01.03.1997, he approached the Tribunal seeking regularization of his service in O.A. No.1108(C) of 2001. The Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2012 when directed the present O.P. No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioner as a Driver, in consideration of the same, petitioner was reposted vide order dated 24.03.2012 under Annexure-
2. Since the petitioner for the period from 01.03.1997 to 23.03.2012 never discharged his duty in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, he was not allowed any salary for the said period.
5.1. However, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner was reposted vide office order dated 24.03.2012 under Annexure-2 and that date should be taken as the date of initial appointment of the Page 3 of 5 // 4 // petitioner on regular basis. It is also contended that taking into account his date of appointment as 24.03.2012, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of RACP was rejected rightly vide the impugned order under Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected, which is not required to be interfered with.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver with regular scale of pay vide order of appointment issued on 25.07.1996 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1108(C) of 2001, petitioner was reposted vide order dated 24.03.2012 under Annexure-2. After such reposting of the petitioner as a driver, his pay was fixed taking into account his date of joining as 29.07.1996 vide order under Annexure-3. Pay of the petitioner was also notionally fixed taking the date of appointment as 29.07.1996 vide order under Annexure-4. In the service book enclosed vide Annexure-A to the counter, date of entry of the petitioner into Govt. service is reflected as 29.07.1996.
6.1. In view of the nature of order available at Annexure-3 and 4 and the date of entry made in the service book of the petitioner so enclosed vide Annexure-A to the counter, this Court is of the view Page 4 of 5 // 5 // that claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order issued under Annexure-6 without proper appreciation and implication of the orders issued under Annexure-3 and 4 and the date of entry reflected in Annexure-A. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection so far as it relates to the petitioner so issued vide order dated 17.08.2016 under Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to O.P. No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner taking into account the benefit extended in his favour vide orders issued under Annexure-3 and 4 and the date of entry of the petitioner into Govt. service so indicated in his service book under Annexure-A. O.P. No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such re- consideration, if it is found that the petitioner is otherwise eligible to get the benefit, consequential follow up action shall also be taken within the aforesaid time period.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Basudev Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Jul-2024 17:53:20 Page 5 of 5