KARUNAKAR KHANDAPANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Field Assistant under the Dangaria Kandho Development Agency, a Government of Orissa undertaking, has filed this application challenging the order of termination dated 12.03.1993 under Annexure-8 and seeking for a direction to pay all the financial benefit as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.

(2.) The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the Dangaria Kandho Development Agency is a Government of Orissa undertaking under the direct control and supervision of the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, which is a Government of Orissa undertaking dedicated to the service of the Schedule Tribe people's development in respect of Agriculture and Horticulture. The petitioner being a Matriculate belonging to Scheduled Caste and having requisite qualification and experience, was engaged on daily wage basis as mate since 1985. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Field Assistant on 1st July, 1988 under the Dangaria Kandho Development Agency, Parsal in K. Singhpur Block, vide Annexure-1. Feeling the necessity of a second Field Assistant, a clarification was sought from the Government vide letter dated 19.11.1989 in Annexure-2. Accordingly, the State Government vide letter dated 22.12.1989 in Annexure-3 clarified that the Chairman, Dangaria Kandho Development Agency, Parsali is the appointing authority for direct appointees like Field Assistants. After obtaining necessary instruction and clarification, the matter was passed in the agenda notes for the Governing Body meeting held on 13.09.1990, pursuant to which the Governing Body resolved to create a post of Field Assistant. A selection Board was formed for the purpose of appointing a regular Field Assistant. A number of candidates were interviewed on 07.04.1991 in which the petitioner being the most suitable, was selected and appointed as a regular Field Assistant w.e.f. 13.08.1991 in the time scale of Rs. 950-1500/- per month, vide Annexure-4. The Governing Body, for the creation of the second post of Field Assistant, wrote to opposite party no.3, pursuant to which the State Govt. replied that the Governing Body is competent enough either to create/delete a post. Therefore, the selection and appointment was made by the Dangaria Kandho Development Agency for giving regular appointment to the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner joined in the post and was receiving salary in the time Scale of pay prescribed for the post till August, 1992. After joining of a new Special Officer, the petitioner was not given regular salary since the month of September. 1992 and when he approached the opposite party no.4 on 15.10.1992 requesting for his salary as he was getting earlier, he was informed that he shall be paid at the rate of his basic pay of Rs.950/- only after clearance from the Government regarding his appointment in the post of Field Assistant. Thereafter, when his salary was not paid till November, 1992, he again approached the opposite party no.4 who advised him to give his complaint in writing. So, the petitioner represented to opposite party no.4 on 23.11.1992 stating that due to non-payment of salary since last two months, he was not able to purchase daily domestic articles for his food and essential medicines so badly needed for his seriously ailing wife.

(3.) Mr. C.A. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that when the petitioner was appointed by following due procedure of selection on the basis of the resolution passed by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 13.09.1990 under the Chairmanship of P.A.I.T.D.A., Rayagada-cum- Vice Chairman with other 15 members Board at Item No. 12(ii) approved for creation and posting of " another Field Assistant", the service of the petitioner could not have been terminated without following due procedure of law. It is further urged that while terminating the services of the petitioner, neither the principles of natural justice have been complied with nor has any reason been assigned though he was duly appointed by following due procedure of selection. In addition to that the petitioner was receiving the salary in the time Scale of Rs.780-1160/-, pursuant to his terms of appointment in Annexure-6. But the same has been denied for no reasons. Therefore, he seeks to quash the order of termination issued by the authorities in Annexure-8 dated 12.03.1993 as the same is violative of principle of natural justice and release of financial benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law. In order to substantiate his case he has relied upon the judgments of apex Court in Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University and others, 1998 AIR(SC) 3261, in Raj Rani (Smt.) v. Haryana State of Social Welfare Advisory Board and Another, 1995 Supp2 SCC 759, in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and another v. Management of Viswa Bharata Seva Samiti and another, 2001 AIR(SC) 2836 and in Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another, 2010 AIR(SC) 142.