Orissa High Court
Afr Manas Ranjan Pattnaik And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... Opp. ... on 13 April, 2021
Author: B.R.Sarangi
Bench: B.R.Sarangi
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 34606 OF 2020
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India.
---------------
AFR Manas Ranjan Pattnaik and others ..... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. K.C. Sahu,
B.S. Panigrahi and
D.K. Mahallik, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Rath,
Addl. Standing Counsel,
[O.P. Nos.1 to 3]
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI Date of hearing: 06.04.2021: Date of Judgment: 13.04.2021 DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioners, who are working as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 27.11.2020 // 2 // under Annexure-14, whereby the orders antedating the regularization of the petitioners have been cancelled in pursuance of the orders passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in different Original Applications.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that an advertisement was issued in the year 2006 by the Chief District Medical Officer (C.D.M.O.), Nayagarh vide Annexure-1 for engagement of contractual daily wage staff under the Health and Family Welfare (H&FW) Department in Nayagarh district in different posts, which includes the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) [for short "MPHW (M)"]. It was stipulated in the advertisement that the candidates must have passed HSC examination, besides other conditions, such as, the candidates of Nayagarh district would be given preference for appointment and such appointment would be purely temporary and may be terminated at anytime without assigning any reason thereof. The selected candidates were to submit an undertaking to the effect // 3 // that they would not claim any government post/regular appointment in future and the candidates appointed on contractual basis would not claim for inter-district transfer. Name of the post applied for must be written on the top of the envelope and the applications with the requisite documents must reach the office of CDMO, Nayagarh on or before 08.08.2005 by registered/speed post only. Incomplete applications and those received after due date or by means other than by registered/speed post would be summarily rejected. The application would be accompanied with attested copies of HSC certificate or its equivalent examination with mark sheet, diploma in nursing and midwifery certificate, any other educational qualification certificate and experience certificate, if any. In the advertisement it was also clearly mentioned that there were 65 vacancies in the post of MPHW (M) and the same would be filled up as per the ORV Act (80 point roster).
2.1 Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioners along with others applied for the post of // 4 // MPHW (M). By following due process of selection, the selection committee recommended vide order no.946 dated 18.02.2006 for their engagement on contractual basis and consequentially the petitioners were posted as per the stations mentioned in their engagement orders vide Annexure-2 series. At the time of initial engagement of the petitioners on contractual basis, regular process of selection was followed along with all other formalities, such as, advertisement, ORV Act etc. The petitioners were engaged as MPHW (M) on contractual basis against the regular sanctioned vacant posts, as per the decision of the government, like other paramedical posts, such as, Pharmacist, Staff Nurse, Lab Technician, Radiographer etc. As such, the posts against which the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis are sanctioned paramedical posts, in view of the letter of the government dated 09.06.2005 under Annexure-3. After their engagement on contractual basis, the petitioners have been discharging their duties continuously and in the meantime have completed more than 15 years.
// 5 // Therefore, otherwise also they should have been absorbed on regular basis on completion of six years of service, as their counterpart paramedical staff holding the posts of Pharmacist, Staff Nurse, Lab Technician, Radiographer etc., who were recruited along with the petitioners, have been regularly absorbed on completion of six years. Such discriminatory action of the opposite parties violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2.2 Opposite party no.3 regularized the services of the petitioners along with others w.e.f. 18.09.2013 as per order communicated vide memo no. 2785 dated 20.06.2014 on the basis of G.A. Department resolution dated 17.09.2013. Even though they had completed six years of contractual services since 2011 but their services were not regularized from that date of completion of six years of contractual service, although similar such employees like Pharmacists, those who were employed along with the petitioners in response to very same advertisement, have been regularized from the // 6 // date of exact completion of six years of contractual service.
2.3 The Health and Family Welfare Department, vide resolutions dated 29.10.2008 and 13.05.2013, with concurrence of the Finance Department took a policy decision that Pharmacist, Staff Nurse, Lab Technician, Radiographer etc. continuing on contractual basis for a period of six years are to be regularly absorbed converting the said contractual to regular one and basing upon the same the services of the said paramedical employees have been brought over to regular establishment, whereas the petitioners have been discriminated.
2.4 Due to non-regularization of the services of the petitioners by antedating their date of regularization from the date of completion of six years of contractual service like other paramedical posts, such as, Pharmacist, Staff Nurse, Lab Technician, Radiographer etc., the petitioners approached the State // 7 // Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 13(B) of 2018, O.A. No. 10(B) of 2018, O.A. No.1735 of 2018 and O.A. No.2758 of 2018 with a prayer for antedating their regularization exactly from the date of completion of six years of contractual service like other paramedical contractual posts. The tribunal allowed those original applications directing the opposite parties to take appropriate decision for regularization of the services of the petitioners on completion of six years of contractual service, as has been done in the case of other paramedical posts by antedating their regularization on completion of six years of contractual service with consequential service benefits, within a period of three moths from the date of receipt of copy of the order. As such, the tribunal, while passing the order, relying upon the ratio as well as principle decided in O.A. No.2023 of 2015 and O.A. No.1821 of 2015, directed to consider the case of the petitioners. Needless to say, Government had already allowed the benefit of antedating of service with regard to the petitioners in O.A. No. 1821 of 2015 after // 8 // getting concurrence from the Law Department as well as the Finance Department. Accordingly, on the basis of the order passed in O.A. No.1821 of 2015, Government directed to the CDMO, Jagatsinghpur for implementation of the same. Consequentially, the CDMO, Jagatsinghpur, vide order no.1074 dated 12.04.2018, directed for regularization of the petitioners in O.A. No.1821 of 2015 by antedating their services from the date of completion of six years of contractual service with all consequential service and financial benefits.
2.5 As a consequence thereof, the CDM & PHO, Nayagarh vide order dated 01.10.2018 under Annexure-12 passed order antedating regularization of services of the petitioners from the date of completion of six years of contractual service with all consequential service and financial benefits. After the order of the tribunal so also after implementation of the order passed by the CDM & PHO, Nayagarh, consequential benefits, including financial benefits so also seniority of the petitioners had been fixed and their names were // 9 // indicated in the gradation list of MPHW (M) taking into account their revised antedated regularization under Annexure-12.
2.6 While the petitioners were so continuing, Govt. of Odisha in Health and Family and Welfare Department wrote a letter to all the CDM and PHOs referring to O.A. No.1554 of 2018 filed by Bipra Charan Mahal and others stating therein that State has filed writ petition against the order passed by the tribunal in all antedated cases on the basis of the views of the Law Department. Consequentially, vide letter dated 27.11.2020, the Government in Health and Family and Welfare Department wrote to all the CDM & PHOs with regard to cancellation of orders of antedated regularization of MPHW (M) and MPH (F) pursuant to orders passed by the tribunal in different O.As under Annexure-14. Hence this application.
3. Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that when similarly // 10 // situated paramedical employees have got the benefit of regularization of service on completion of six years of service, non-extension of such benefit to the petitioners, who are similarly situated with that of para-medical staff, amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and discriminatory. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by the tribunal by getting concurrence from the Law Department as well as Finance Department, if the petitioners were regularized by antedating their services and also extended with the financial benefits as well as other service benefits, such as seniority, without giving due opportunity of hearing, any cancellation thereof under Annexure-14 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is hit by principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the petitioners were given antedated regularization against the sanctioned posts like that of other similarly situated paramedical staff and, therefore, without following due procedure of law, cancellation thereof cannot sustain in the eye of law and, as such, the order // 11 // impugned dated 27.11.2020 has to be quashed. It is further contended that if the petitioners were allowed to continue by granting antedated regularization along with seniority and other service and financial benefits, the decision taken for cancellation of such regularization is hit by provisions of estoppel. Thereby, the order dated 27.11.2020 cannot sustain in the eye of law and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed.
It is further contended that the petitioners were extended with the benefits pursuant to the order passed by the tribunal, which was challenged before this Court by way of filing writ petition and the same having been dismissed, the order passed by the tribunal reached its finality. Consequentially, if the benefits had already been extended to the petitioners, the same should not have been cancelled and, as such, the same amounts to violation of order passed by the tribunal as well as this Court. It is further contended that the tribunal has extended the benefit of regularization of service on completion of six years of contractual service // 12 // like other paramedical staff such as Pharmacist, Staff Nurse, Lab Technician, Radiographer etc., thereby the petitioners could not have been discriminated. It is contended that when the direction given by the tribunal got concurrence from the Law Department as well as Finance Department and the same having been implemented and the benefit having been extended, by passing the order impugned, the same cannot be withdrawn on some pretext or other. It is further contended that challenging the order passed by the tribunal writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) No.4253 of 2021 (State of Odisha v. Mahendra Nath Karan and others) and W.P.(C) No.37783 of 2020 (State of Odisha v. Trilochan Gochhayat and others) though preferred by the State, but a Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 09.03.2021 and 24.02.2021 respectively dismissed the said writ petitions. Similarly, W.P.(C) No.33917 of 2020 had been filed by one Sanjaya Kumar Biswal seeking direction to the CDM & PHO, Dhenkanal to implement the order passed by the tribunal in O.A. // 13 // NO.12(B) of 2018 and in compliance of the same the Dy. Secretary, namely, Dr. Jasmine Patnaik (OAS) has passed the order on 21.06.2019 directing the CDM & PHO, Dhenkanal to implement the order passed by the tribunal. But the very same Dy. Secretary passed the order impugned dated 27.11.2020 cancelling the antedated regularization of the petitioners without any application of mind, thereby, the order impugned dated 27.11.2020 cannot sustain in the eye of law.
4. Mr. A. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, referring to the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no.1 and 2, contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by CDM & PHO, Nayagarh selection was done for the post of MPHW (M) on contractual basis on consolidated pay per month. As per the conditions for contractual appointment to the paramedical posts, as mentioned in the advertisement, the appointment is purely temporary and may be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. The selected candidates were to submit an // 14 // undertaking to the effect that they would not claim any government post/regular appointment in future. Therefore, on the basis of such condition stipulated in the advertisement, if the petitioners were selected and appointed, they will have no right to claim for regularization and they are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract itself. The reliance placed by the petitioners with regard to the G.A. Department resolution dated 17.09.2013 resolving therein to regularize the appointment of existing contractual Group-C and Group-D employees, who are not holding any post in contravention of any statutory recruitment rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any executive instruction in absence of any rules. As per clause-2(1) of the above resolution "on the date of satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service or from the date of publication of the resolution, whichever is later, they shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed, a formal order of regular appointment shall be issued by // 15 // the appointing authority". The said resolution has been passed in supersession of the resolution/orders/ instructions issued by different departments of government to that effect. Pursuant to such resolution, the services of the petitioners were regularized from 18.09.2013, i.e., the date of publication of resolution dated 17.09.2013 and the petitioners having accepted the same without any objection, now they cannot turn around and say that it should be given from the date they have completed six years of contractual service. It is further contended that the resolution dated 29.10.2008 and resolution nos.14575, 14567 and 14571 dated 13.05.2013 under Annexure-5 is with regard to contractually appointed Pharmacists, Radiographer, Laboratory Technicians, etc. and, as such, there was no such policy of the government for regularization of Health Workers appointed on contractual basis except the resolution dated 17.09.2013 of the G.A. Department and the petitioners have been regularized as per the resolution dated 17.09.2013. Thereby, no illegality or // 16 // irregularity has been committed by the authority in cancelling the antedation regularization vide order dated 27.11.2020.
5. This Court heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Rath, learned Addl. Government Advocate by virtual mode and perused the record. Since pleadings having been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
6. In the above backdrop, the only consideration to be made in this writ petition is whether the order impugned under Annexure-14 dated 27.11.2020 cancelling the orders antedating the regularization of the petitioners, pursuant to the order passed by the tribunal in different Original Applications, is legally tenable and well justified. It is not disputed that the petitioners, in pursuance of the orders dated 02.07.2018, 24.07.2018 and 02.07.2018 passed by the // 17 // tribunal in O.A. No.13(B) of 2018, O.A. No.1735 of 2015 and O.A. No.10 (B) of 2018 respectively and consequential communication, vide D.H.S. (O) letter no.15304/MF (NVBDCP)-IV-OA-25/12018 dated 27.07.2018, were regularized with effect from the date of their completion of six years of service with usual pay and G.P. as admissible, vide Annexure-12 dated 01.10.2018. Consequent upon such regularization, the petitioners have been extended with the service and financial benefits as admissible to their posts on completion of six years of contractual employment. Thereby, the action so taken subsequent thereof in cancelling their antedating regularization, vide impugned order dated 27.11.2020 under Annexure-14, cannot sustain in the eye of law and, as such, the same is hit by the principle of promissory estoppel.
7. The Law Dictionary expresses promissory estoppel to the following effect:-
"A promise by which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial // 18 // character on the part of the promise, and which does induct such action or forebearance. Such a promise is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise."
8. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol.16 in Para-1514 at page 1017, the "promissory estoppel" has been defined to the following effect:-
"Promissory estoppel: When one party has, by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to their previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to the qualification which he himself has so introduced."
9. In Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Treas House Ltd., (1956) 1 All ER 256, it has been held that a promise is intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and in fact acted upon is binding.
// 19 //
10. In Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd v.
Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, (1970) 1 SCC 582, it has been held that there is no distinction between a private individual and a public body so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned.
11. In Gujurat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels, (1983) 3 SCC 379, it has been held that the principle of "promissory estoppel" would estop a person from backing out of its obligation arising from a solemn promise made by it to the respondent.
12. In Ashok Kumar Maheswari v. State of U.P., 1988 SCC LSS 592, it has been held that doctrine of "promissory estoppel" has been evolved by the Courts on the principle of equity to avoid injustice.
13. In Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322: 2002) 2 SCC 188, it has been held that the Government is equally bound by its promise like a private individual, save where the promise is prohibited by law, or devoid of authority or power of the officer // 20 // making the promise. The equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel must yield where the equity so requires in the larger public interest.
14. In State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., (2004) 7 SCC 673, it has been held that the "promissory estoppel" operates on equity and public interest.
15. In A.P. Steel Re-rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2007) 2 SCC 725, it has been held that where a beneficent scheme is made by the State, the doctrine of "promissory estoppel" would apply.
16. In State of Orissa v. Manglam Timber Products Ltd., (2003) 9 Scale 578, it has been held that to attract applicability of promissory estoppel a contract in writing is not a necessary requirement. This principle is based on premise that no one can take advantage of its own omission or fault.
// 21 //
17. Applying the principle of "promissory estoppel"
to the present context, the Government, being a model employer, is bound by its promise like regularization of service on completion of six years and, as such, the same is not prohibited by law, or devoid of authority or power of the officer making the promise. Rather, the benefit has been extended to the petitioners, in pursuance of the direction given by the tribunal. Therefore, the subsequent pleadings made in the counter affidavit that regularization can only be made applicable to the petitioners, in view of the G.A. Department notification dated 17.09.2013, is absolutely misconceived. Though it is admitted in the counter affidavit that contractual appointment of Pharmacists, Staff Nurse, Laboratory Technicians and Jr. Radiographers, etc. has been regularized in Nayagarh district on completion of uninterrupted six years of contractual services, as per the instructions issued by the government in Health and FW Department resolutions no.24160/H dated 29.10.2008, no.14575/H // 22 // dated 13.05.2013 and no.14571/H dated 13.05.2013 under Annexure-5 series, but it is contended that no direction regarding regularization of contractual services of the MPHW (M) and their counterparts has been issued by the Government. If similarly situated paramedical staff have extended with the benefits of regularization of service on completion of six years, there is no valid and justifiable reason available with the State-authority not to extend such benefit to the MPHW (M), who stand on similar footing with those paramedical staff of the State. There is no plausible reason available with the State- authority to say that MPHW (M) employees are not the paramedical staff and they are distinct from them. If the petitioners are working as paramedical staff and, as such, if similarly situated persons have already been extended with the benefit of regularization on completion of six years of service, merely because no individual and separate order in that regard has been passed by the State Government, it cannot disentitle them from getting the benefit as claimed. Thereby, the action so taken by // 23 // the authority is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
18. Discrimination means difference in the treatment of two or more persons or subject. In Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurastra, AIR 1952 SC 123, it has been held that discrimination involves an element of unfavourable bias and it is in that sense the expression must be understood.
19. Therefore, if the paramedical staff, such as, Pharmacists, Staff Nurse, Laboratory Technicians, Jr. Radiographer, etc., those who were appointed on contractual basis, have already been regularized on completion of six years of service, such benefit to the similarly situated paramedical staff, namely, MPHW (M) cannot be denied, as it suffers from vices of discrimination and, as such, it involves an element of unfavourable bias and there is difference in the // 24 // treatment of two or more persons or subjects, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
20. In Swedeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818, the apex Court held that the maxim audi alteram partem has many facets. Two of them are:
(a) notice of the case to be met; and (b) opportunity to explain.
21. In Forest v. Brighton, (1981) 2 All ER 711, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton opined that one of the principles of natural justice is that a person is entitled to adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before any administrative or judicial order is pronounced against him, so that he, or someone acting on his behalf, may make such representation, if any, as he sees fit.
22. In Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board, (1976) 1 All ER 12, Lord Denning, MR opined that the fundamental rule is that, if a person may be subjected to pains or penalties, or be exposed to prosecution or proceedings, or deprived of remedies or redress, or in // 25 // some such way adversely affected by the investigation and report, then he should be tale the case made against him and be afforded a fair opportunity of answering.
23. In I.J. Rao, Asstt. Collector of Customs v. Bibhuti Bhusan Bagh, (1989) 3 SCC 202, it has been held that where rights of a person are adversely and prejudicially affected by an order made by an authority in a proceeding, such person is entitled to a pre- decisional notice irrespective of whether the proceeding is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative in nature.
24. Therefore, notice is the first limb of audi alteram partem. It is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play.
25. The four essentials of "due process" concept are: (a) notice of hearing, (b) opportunity of hearing, (c) impartiality of tribunal, and (d) an orderly course of // 26 // procedure. A notice of hearing is, in fact, the prerequisite of the other three essentials, as it will be difficult for any person to avail himself of the opportunity of hearing or sticking to claim of impartiality of a tribunal or of the orderly course of procedure unless he knows that a hearing is going to take place.
26. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, the apex Court held that since in the absence of notice, hearing becomes hallow, the right becomes a ritual, the court may invalidate a decision for lack of pre-decisional notice.
27. Applying the above principles to the present context, admittedly while passing the order impugned under Annexure-14 dated 27.11.2020 cancelling the orders antedating regularization of the petitioners, no notice has been given to them. As such, by virtue of the order passed in Annexure-12 dated 01.10.2018 regularizing the services of the petitioners on completion // 27 // of six years of service at par with their counterpart paramedical staff, a right has already been accrued in favour of the petitioners and more particularly they have been given financial as well as service benefits by fixing their seniority. Thereby, while cancelling such benefits, which had already been extended, principles of natural justice was to be complied with. As the same has not been complied with, the impugned order in Annexure-14 dated 27.11.2020 cannot sustain in the eye of law.
28. Apart from the above, on perusal of the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 in Anenxure-14, it appears that the same has been passed by the authority, pursuant to the orders passed by the tribunal in different O.As. But admittedly, such orders passed by the tribunal, where directions for regularization of MPHW (M) on completion of six years of service were issued, were challenged by the State before this Court by filing various writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) No.4253 of 2021 (State of Odisha v. Mahendra Nath Karan and others) and W.P.(C) No.37783 of 2020 (State of Odisha // 28 // v. Trilochan Gochhayat and others), and a Division Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 09.03.2021 and 24.02.2021, dismissed the said writ petitions holding that there was no error apparent on the face of record and, as such, while dismissing the writ petitions reliance was placed by this Court on the case of M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd v. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270, wherein the apex Court held that where there is error apparent on the face of record, the same can be interfered with by a writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if the writ petitions preferred by the State Government against the orders passed by the tribunal were dismissed, there was no valid and justifiable reason available with the State to pass an order on 27.11.2020 under Annexure-14 cancelling the orders antedating regularization of service of MPHW (M) and MPHW (F). More so, in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.33917 (Sanjay Kumar Biswal v. State of Odisha), when direction had // 29 // already been given by the Dy. Secretary to Government, namely, Dr. Jasmine Patnaik, OAS vide letter dated 21.06.2019 to the CDM & PHO, Dhenkanal to implement the orders passed by the tribunal in O.A. No.12 (B) of 2018, the very same authority ought not have passed the order impugned in Annexure-14 dated 27.11.2020, which itself shows that the same has been passed without any application of mind. Therefore, the order impugned on this count also cannot sustain in the eye of law.
29. The contention raised by Mr. A. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel that since the G.A. Department has passed resolution on 17.09.2013, no retrospective regularization can be made by the authority, is not legally tenable in view of the fact that similarly situated paramedical staff have already been extended with the benefits as per the very same G.A. Department notification. Therefore, the petitioners, having stood in the same footing, cannot be denied such benefit.
// 30 //
30. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the discussions, as made above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order dated 27.11.2020 under Annexure-14 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government in Health and Family Welfare Department to all the C.D.M. & P.H.Os., Odisha, with regard to cancellation of orders of antedation of regularization of MPHW (M) and MPHW (F), cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Since the rights of the petitioners have been protected by this Court by passing the interim orders, they shall be deemed to be continuing in service on regularization as before from the date they have completed six years contractual service as per Annexure- 12 dated 01.10.2018.
31. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
.............................
DR. B.R. SARANGI, JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th April, 2021, Ashok/GDS