Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.

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 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.