SUNIL KUMAR BEJ Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief;

(2.) The facts of the case are that pursuant to a Notification dtd. 11/8/1997 issued by the State Project Director, Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA) (Opposite Party No.2) for appointment of Peons on contractual basis, the Petitioner submitted his application. He was called upon to attend test/interview on 20/11/1997. He was selected by District Selection Committee and was appointed as Peon on 2/2/1998 on consolidated remuneration of Rs.1,000.00 per month by order dtd. 17/11/1998 ofthe District Project Coordinator, Sarba Sikshya Abhiyan, DPEP, Keonjhar (Opposite Party No.3). While he was working as such he was disengaged. However, two of his Juniors namely, Trilochan Mallick, who was engaged as Attendant-cum-Sweeper-cum-Watchman and Susanta Kumar Nayak, who was engaged as Attendant without going through any selection process were continued in service. The Petitioner therefore approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.3401/2002 which was disposed of directing him to submit a representation to the Opposite Party No.2, which was to be disposed of within two months. Opposite Party No.3 by order dtd. 13/6/2003 engaged the Petitioner temporarily till closure of the project i.e. 30/6/2003. The Petitioner was not paid his arrear or current salary and suddenly he was prevented to work w.e.f. 16/6/2003. He ventilated his grievance before the Opposite Party No.3, but without addressing the same the Opposite Party No.2, vide order dtd. 27/9/2003 re-engaged some staff who were also disengaged since 30/6/2003. The Petitioner therefore approached this Court again in W.P.(C) No.1316/2004. By order dtd. 16/9/2008, this Court found that the Petitioner was senior to the other two employees who had been reengaged and quashed the order of reengagement passed in their favour. Further, the Opposite Parties authorities were directed to consider the case of the Petitioner, he being senior to the said other persons. Pursuant to such order the Petitioner on 27/9/2008 submitted a representation before the State Project Director with prayer to adjust him against one of the resultant vacancies caused by removal of the said two re-engaged candidates. There being no response, he submitted another representation on 27/3/2009. There being no response, the Petitioner filed contempt petition being CONTC No.2659/2009. During pendency of the Contempt Petition, on being instructed by the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.3 vide order dtd. 9/9/2011 engaged the Petitioner temporarily as Peon on contractual basis with consolidated remuneration of Rs.8716.00 per month. The Petitioner joined on 12/9/2011. He submitted a representation on 23/10/2011 requesting for grant of salary for the period of disengagement i.e. from 27/9/2003 to 11/9/2011, but as no action was taken he has approached this Court.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-Opposite Parties admitting most of the facts. It is however, reiterated that the Petitioner along with 10 others who were working as Attendants in the Block Resource Centers were disengaged from the project w.e.f. 28/1/2002. But taking into account the satisfactory performance of Trilochan Mallick and Susanta Kumar Nayak they were allowed to continue as such. It is also admitted that the staff disengaged on disclosure of DPEP Scheme on 30/6/2003 were reengaged. As regards the arrear salary claimed by the Petitioner, it is stated that he is not entitled to the same for not having rendered work during such period. It is further stated that pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1316/2004 Trilochan Mallick and Susanta Kumar Nayak were disengaged from contractual engagement w.e.f. 09/9/2011. Thereafter, the Petitioner joined as 1st Peon on 12/9/2011 while Trilochan Mallick joined as 2nd Peon on 13/9/2011.