NIMAIN CHARAN PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Mishra has instruction to appear on behalf of the petitioner. Counter affidavit in Misc. Case No. 1726 / 2001 filed by opposite party no.2 for vacation of stay has been filed by Mr. Mishra in Court. Copy has been served.

(2.) IN the writ application, prayer has been made for quashing Annexure -3 and for a direction to opposite party no.2 to regularise the services of the petitioner. Under Annexure -3 it appears that due to plan and paucity of funds, it has been decided to terminate the services of the petitioner as his services are no longer required. It is, of course, true that an ex party interim order was passed in Misc. Case No. 870 / 2001 which was continuing from time to time. Subsequently, a petition for modification of order has been filed which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 5126 / 2001. It appears that on 2.3.2001, the matter was directed to be listed on 8.3.2001 and the interim order was to continue till then. It further appears that in 8.3.2001 the matter had not been listed and was taken up on being mentioned and the interim order was directed to continue till 16.3.2001, but no intimation had been given to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, and since nothing was communicated regarding continuance of stay order, the name of the petitioner has been struck - off with effect from 12.3.2001. However, the matter was again listed on 20.3.2001 and it was directed that "status quo as on today relating to service shall be maintained ". In the aforesaid background, opposite party no.2 states that before 20.3.2001, the name of the petitioner had already been struck -off and continuance of the interim order of status quo may create legal complication and as such the same is required to be modified.

(3.) NOT withstanding the order of vacation, it is made clear that if there is necessity, the present order vacating the earlier interim orders will not stand in the way of opposite party no.2 in engaging the petitioner in any appropriate post if there is necessity for the same. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be paid salary for the period during which he has already worked,