GANESWAR PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition involves a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioner at least from the dates juniors to him have been regularised, on quashing of Annexures- 7, 9 and 10, declaring the retrenchment illegal and also disbursing equal pay for equal work with release of differential arrear salary within specific time.

(2.) Background involving the case is petitioner discharged his duties as an agent in different spells from 27/9/1980 to 30/8/1990 under Similipahar Forest Development Corporation on short term basis. It is after merger of S.F.D.C. with O.F.D.C. on 1/10/1990 petitioner was directed to join as an agent on 26/10/1990. Records reveal petitioner being a matriculate was initially engaged on fixed remuneration of Rs.300.00 per month vide order dated 27.9. 1980 vide Annexure-1, he joined the post on 3/10/1980 and continued till 31/5/1981. While continuing as such, petitioner applied for leave on 31/5/1981. While availing leave since petitioner remained under treatment till 20/12/1987, on the basis of medical support he joined again on 24/12/1987 and continued till 31/5/1988. Petitioner once again joined as an agent in the month of October 1988 and continued till May 1989.

(3.) Mr.Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the above background of the case challenged to the retrenchment order also while continuing with his prayer for regularisation, submitted there is clear victimisation as well as exploitation involving petitioner and for no proper treatment to a mere employee finally even after long period in the first spell of his service, then continuing in service from 26/10/1990 till he was retrenched by order dtd. 31/7/2001 almost 11 years of service, petitioner is made to street and forced the petitioner to serve his rest of life in pitiable condition. Mr.Khuntia, learned counsel keeping in view the age of the petitioner in filing writ petition in1996 almost 49 years and already reached at the age of 75 years presently contended that the petitioner is feeling fully helplessness and unsecured. Mr.Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner in the above background of matter submitted that in the present scenario even if regularisation direction and or reinstatement is not possible, there should at least be grant of appropriate relief by way of monetary compensation by this Court. Mr.Khuntia again taking this Court to the persons disclosed through paragraph-12 of the brief contended that when person similarly placed got benefit of regularisation there was no impediment and obstruction in the regularisation of the petitioner involved. He however admitted that looking to the present age of the petitioner, there is no possibility to put back the petitioner into service. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner also involving the show cause and the retrenchment order submitted that the reason assigned in the retrenchment order did not have any reflection in the notice by way of show cause and claims the retrenchment of the petitioner came by way of surprise and thus prays this court for interfering in the impugned order and granting appropriate relief in the interest of justice.