Orissa High Court
Bibekananda Panda vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 9 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.9814 of 2025
Bibekananda Panda ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Dr. Jitendra Kumar
Lenka
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.04.2025 Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:
"The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to issue rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Opp. Party No. I should not be directed to restore the petitioner in the post of Forester anywhere in the State w.e.f.
28/09/2012 notionally by taking into consideration the fact that has completed Page 1 of 5. Forester Training Course and continued in the said post for more than one year by considering the letter No. 23208/2F (NG)-2021/2024 dated 20/11/2024 at Annexure-12 and/or alternatively direct the Opp. Parties to give promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Forester at par with juniors w.e.f. 31/10/2019.
And issue any other writ/ writs or direction/directions as would be necessary in the interest of justice;
And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause, the rule be made absolute."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially the Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on contractual basis with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.3,000/- per month vide office order dated 03.06.2008 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Thereafter, on being selected, the Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard vide order dated 20.07.2009 by the DFO, Rourkela (K.L.) Division on regular basis. He further contended that on being selected, the Petitioner was deputed for forest training on 06.12.2010. After completion of the training the Petitioner joined in the post of Forest Guard on 10.12.2010, under Annexue-5 to the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner was again selected for the post of Forester and was considered for training on 12.12.2010, under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. On successful completion of training the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Forester w.e.f. 21.10.2011 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
Page 2 of 5.6. While this was the position, one Sukanta Kumar Brahma belonging to the SEBC category has secured more marks in appointment against a UR category post of Forester. Accordingly, his application was allowed and he was given appointment as Forester. Such appointment was made pursuant to the order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal dated 19.07.2012 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.14118 of 2012, and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13.08.2012, the writ petition. On 16.10.2012 the Petitioner was appointed as Forester again by virtue of the order under Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner was restored in the post of Forester notionally w.e.f. 28.09.2012 without any financial benefit as the Petitioner has completed the Forester Training Course and was terminated from service for none of his fault.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture referring to the letter dated 20.11.2024issued by the Senior Administrative Officer of the Office of the PCCF, Odisha contended that the case of the Petitioner was considered and it was found that the Petitioner has suffered despite no fault of his own. The Petitioner was wrongly appointed by the D.F.O., Bonai Forest Division in the post made for SEBC candidate. While rectifying such mistake, the Petitioner was again appointed as a Forest Guard. Accordingly, a recommendation has been made by the Office of the PCCF, Odisha to the government to regularize the case of the Petitioner in the post of Forester w.e.f. 28.09.2012, i.e. the date of his termination from the post of Forester Notionally without any financial benefits. He further contended that although recommendation has been made by the Office of the PCCF, Odisha vide letter dated 20.11.2024 under Annexure-12, however, no Page 3 of 5. decision has been taken by the State Government. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the State Authority, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that a recommendation has already been made vide letter dated 20.11.2024 under Annexure-12 to the writ petition. He further contended that in the event no decision has taken on the letter dated 20.11.2024 under Annexure-12 as of now, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the letter under Annexure-12 to the writ petition strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture, by referring to the judgment of this Court in Anita Mohapatra v. State of Odisha and others in W.A. No.1437 of 2022 and a batch of other similar cases which were disposed of vide a common judgment dated 29.09.2023, submitted that in an identical situation the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that the officer who has suffered due to no of his fault, be considered on equitable grounds and he may be adjusted in the post, if required, by creating a supernumerary post. By referring to the aforesaid judgment of this Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner has suffered due to the fault of the authorities, the Petitioner should not be prejudiced and should be adjusted against the post as he has already undergone the Forester training at the initial stage. He further contended that there is also a recommendation by the Office of the PCCF, Odisha vide letter dated 20.11.2024 under Page 4 of 5. Annexure-12 recommending the case of the Petitioner for such adjustment in the post of Forester.
10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the writ petition, further keeping in view the recommendation of the Office of the PCCF, Odisha dated 20.11.2024 under Annexure-12, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner and a decision be taken on such recommendation, vide letter dated 20.11.2024 under Annexure-12, within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. While considering the case of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 shall also take into consideration the judgment referred to hereinabove and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 5 of 5.
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2025 10:54:02