ANAND SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, who was an assistant labour officer under the Government of Orissa, oballenges the action of the Labour Commissioner, Orissa (opposite party 3), in not allowing him to join an District. Labour Officer in the circumstances hereinafter stated.

(2.) THE petitioner, a Master of Arts in Labour and Social Welfare was appoints as assistant labour officer on 18 July 1960 on the basis of a written and viva voce test in which the petitioner was stated to have stood first. On 5 October 1961 the petitioner was informed that his services would no longer be required after one month from the date of issue of the said order. This order of discharge is however, stated to be arbitrary as appears from the order of the Minister in-charge which was put on record in a letter of the Secretary to Government, Tribal and Rural Welfare Department, to the Additional Secretary to Government, Home and Labour Department, dated 20 March 1965, which was produced before as in course of hearing of this writ petition. By an order dated 13 December 1961, the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 24 November 1961 on which date he actually handed over the charge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation to Government against the order of termination of his services. On 24 January 1964, the Government passed an order on the said representation reinstating the petitioner. The relevant portion of the said order setting aside the order dated 12 December 1961 is set out as follows : Government have therefore been pleased to set aside your order No. 23175 dated 12 December 1961 terminating the services of Anand Sahu and to order that he should be reinstated with effect from the date of discharge. Hs will be deemed to have continued in service and be entitled to all the benefies of service. If there was no vacancy in existence the period during which there was no vacancy and the funds if any required may be reported so that a post may be created for the period in question. If at present there is no vacancy, the junior most officer should make room for Sahu. This order was subsequently ciarified by the Government by an order dated 8 February 1964, the relevant portion of which is quoted below: the expression 'all the benefits' mentioned in the above letter (referring to the order dated 24 January 1964) includes prospects of promotion. If Sahu lost them only because he was not available, they should be restored to him.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the petitioner could not or did not Join his post as assistant labour officer in the circumstances which we need not go into details herein. It is clear that ultimately the petitioner was agreeable to join as assistant labour officer and the Government also were agreeable to allow him to join as such in fact, in his letter dated 7 September 1964 the petitioner wrote to the Lebour Commissioner atating that on the same data he had received labour Commissioner Memorandum No. 10213, dated 25 August 1984, directing him to report himself to the assistant Labour Commissioner. Sambalpur for duty as assistant labour officer in the Zonal babour officer. Sambalpur, by 5 September 1984; the petitioner stated that he had not been able to join at sambalpur by 5 September 1964 in obedience to the said order in his said letter the petitioner solicited the favour of further orders from the labour commissioner to which it is said that the labour commissioner uptill now has not sent any reply.