Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The order be communicated to opposite party at the cost of the petitioner.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
Sd/- A.S. Naidu, J."

In pursuance of the above order, the opposite party informed the petitioner that the letter dated 6.10.2008 is not available in file and the Dealing Assistant Ramesh Chandra Sahoo has also reported that the petitioner has not discharged his duty as Fees Supervisor as the petitioner has not signed in any register as proof of attending the duty. Opposite party has not produced any such document stated to have been written by the Dealing Assistant Ramesh Chandra Sahoo. On the other hand, Annexure-9 series has been produced by the petitioner to show that said Ramesh Chandra Sahoo has certified about the performance of duty by the petitioner for the period from 1.3.2006 to 31.7.2006, 1.8.2006 to 31.12.2006, 1.1.2007 to 31.5.2007, 1.6.2007 to 30.11.2007, 1.12.2007 to 30.4.2008 and from 1.5.2008 to 30.9.2008 and each absentee statement has been countersigned by the Chairperson of the Berhampur Municipality.

14. It is revealed from the counter and additional counter of the opposite party that the Chairperson, Berhampur Municipality does not countersign any absentee statement of the employees and the employees are required to sign the attendance register while attending duty as Fees Supervisor. But Annexure-9 series do not disclose about the signature of the present petitioner nor are same the copies of the attendance register. Rather, he produced the Death Certificate of Ramesh Chandra Sahoo vide Annexure-A/1 which has been issued by the Birth and Death Registrar on 20.8.2009. It appears from that certificate that Ramesh Chandra Sahoo expired on 17.7.2009.

15. On 2.3.2017 an order was passed directing the opposite party to file additional affidavit about Annexure-9 series filed by the petitioner. On 9.4.2017 the opposite party filed the additional counter affidavit wherein at para-3 the opposite party has stated in the following:-

"3. That with regard to the averments made in para 3.1 and 3.2 of the rejoinder are false, fabricated and concocted. It is humbly submitted that Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, Dealing Asst. had not prepared the Duty Certificate showing engagement of the petitioner as Field Supervisor as he had reported in Annexure-8 that no record regarding discharge of duty of the petitioner is available in the office. Moreover, petitioner has not signed any register as proof of attending the duty as Fees Supervisor nor as he submitted any report with regard to collection of fees. It is humbly submitted that said Ramesh Chandra Sahoo had already expired since long and after death of Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Annexure-9 of the rejoinder had been prepared to suit the case purpose only for claiming back wages which is in after thought and the Hon'ble Court should not interfere in the matter. Further with regard to absentee statement for performance of duty, chairperson of the Municipal Corporation is not competent person to the counter signing authority. The competent person of the counter signing authority is the administrative authority of the concerned section/establishment. The other facts stated in the rejoinder affidavit are misconceived and afterthought."

From the aforesaid additional counter affidavit, the opposite party has neither denied about the signature of Ramesh Chandra Sahoo nor challenged the same as false or fabricated. Simply it has been said that since this document is afterthought, the Court should not interfere in the matter. But at the same time it is revealed from above submission of the opposite party that the absentee statement for performance of duty is prepared. It is not clear from the above additional counter as to who is the competent person to countersign the absentee statement if the Chairperson of the Municipal Corporation is not competent. It is also revealed from the aforesaid statement of the opposite party that vide Annexure-8 Ramesh Chandra Sahoo has reported that such representation of the petitioner dated 6.10.2008 is not available but no such report of Ramesh Chandra Sahoo is produced. When admittedly Ramesh Chandra Sahoo expired in 2009 and all Annexure-9 series pertain to the period from 1.3.2006 to 30.9.2008 and the signatures are not denied, it cannot be said that they are afterthought. Moreover, when the opposite party does not disprove the counter signature by the Chairperson of the Berhampur Municipality, the document vide Annexure-9 series cannot be denied. When Annexure-8 is not supported by any document of Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, same cannot be accepted to counter Annexure-9 series. When Ramesh Chandra Sahoo is no more, the documents prepared by him vide Annexure-9 series have got relevant evidentiary value.