Orissa High Court
Ignace Dungdung vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 10 April, 2023
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9903 of 2023
Ignace Dungdung .... Petitioner
Mr. S.N. Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. I. Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 10.04.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"The Petitioner therefore prays that your Lordship's graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same with cost and issue writ / writ(s) in the nature of certiorari / mandamus and any other or further writ/direction be passed, directing the Director, Municipal Administration/ O.P. No.2 to take decision on the letter No.13691 dt.11.10.2021 under Annexure-11 issued by the Commissioner, Rourkela Municipal Corporation/ O.P. No.3 to give permission to the Commissioner to regularize the petitioner's service and to grant pension and pensionary benefits taking into account the period rendered by the petitioner as NMR workers as per the // 2 // order dt.06.09.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Nrusingha Charan Das Vs State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.21813/2022 under Annexure-13 within a stipulated time with all consequential service and financial benefits;
And any other order(s) be passed as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper;"
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as NMR in Rourkela Municipality, pursuant to the order dated 26.07.2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter under Annexure-1. Thereafter, the petitioner continued on DLR/NMR basis under the Rourkela Municipality. He further contended that Government of Odisha vide Memo No.14386/HUD dated 10.06.2011 intimated to all the Municipal Commissioners/Executive Officers to send detailed information on eligible DLR/NMR workers engaged in ULBs prior to 12.04.93 to bring them over to the work-charged establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to the resolution of the Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 16.10.2012, submitted that pursuant to the said resolution, Government of Odisha has created 1999 number of posts under work-charged establishment in respect of different ULBs of the State to bring over the daily wage workers (considered as DLRs/NMRs) to the work-charged establishment, who are engaged prior to 12.04.1993. The said resolution also contains a detailed break up of number of posts created in ULBs. While the matter stood thus, the Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department again issued a reminder on 17.10.2012 to all the ULBs. Accordingly, Rourkela Municipality submitted a list of employees under Annexure-5. On perusal of the said list, it appears that the // 3 // petitioner's name finds place at Sl. No.24 of the said list.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that pursuant to the list submitted under Annexure-5, the petitioner was brought over to the work-charged establishment of Rourkela Municipal, Rourkela vide office order No.117 dated 03.01.2013 under Annexure-6. While disposing of the representation, the Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department, Bhubaneswar has written letter to Rourkela Municipality to regularize one Binayak Khadenga Work-charged employee of RMC, Rourkela. Referring to Annexure-7, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the name of said Binayak Khadenga was at Sl. No.86 of the list. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the Opposite Parties have adopted pick and choose method while regularizing the employees whose names were sent to the Government vide list under Annexure-
5. Pursuant to the letter under Annexure-7, the above named Binayak Khadenga has been posted as "Fees Peon" against regular post under Annexure-8 in the Rourkela Municipal corporation, Rourkela.
6. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Rourkela Municipal Corporation under Annexure-8 in regularizing the service of similarly situated many other persons, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rourkela on 26.05.2016 under Annexure-9.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the Commissioner, Rourkela Municipal Corporation did not take any action on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner // 4 // approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.3211 of 2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2018 by directing the Commissioner, Rourkela Muncipal Corporation-Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the same within a period of six weeks.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 04.07.2018, Commissioner, Rourkela Muncipal Corporation- Opposite Party No.3 considered the representation of the petitioner and took a decision to regularize the service of work-charged employees and accordingly sought for permission from the Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department vide letter dated 11.10.2021 under Annexure-12. On perusal of the letter under Annexure-12, it appears that the Commissioner, Rourkela Municipal Corporation has stated that a number of work-charged employees filing their petitions have approached the Commissioner along with copy of the order passed by this court to consider their representation. It has also been stated in the said letter that at present 99 posts in Group-D are lying vacant due to superannuation of employees in regular establishment. Further, a detailed list of sanctioned status and vacant posts has been provided along with letter dated 11.10.2021 under Annexure-12. Finally, the Commissioner, Rourkela Municipal Corporation sought for permission from the Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department for regularization of the employees in existing vacant regular posts.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits that although the Commissioner, RMC has taken a decision to regularize // 5 // the employees, however, Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department is sitting over the matter and he has not been granting permission to the Commissioner, Rourkela Municipal Corporation, Rourkela. He further contended that Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department has acted in a discriminatory manner inasmuch as the said Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department issued a letter dated 06.02.2016 recommending name of one Binayak Khadenga work- charged employee for regularization of his service, which was immediately carried out by the Rourkela Municipal Corporation vide order dated 28.03.2016 under Annexure-8. Therefore, leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department be directed to give permission as sought for by Rourkela Municipal Corporation within a stipulated period of time in accordance with law.
10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that as it appears from the letter dated 11.10.2021 under Annexure-12, a decision is required to be taken by the Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection, if a direction is given to the authorities/Opposite Parties to consider the case of the petitioner and to take a lawful decision pursuant to letter of Rourkela Municipal Corporation, Rourkela dated 11.10.2021 under Annexure-12, if no such decision has been taken in the // 6 // meantime, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.
11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, upon a careful scrutiny of the background facts involved in the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Director, Municipal Administration, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department-Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the letter of the Rourkela Municipal Corporation, Rourkela dated 11.10.2021 under Annexure-12 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. It is further directed that the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to take a decision on the letter under Annexture-12 keeping in view his own decision in the matter of one Binayak Khadenga under Annexures-7 and 8 within the aforesaid time stipulation. The decision so taken in the matter shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision.
12. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Jagabandhu