Pranab Kishore Pattnaik v. State Of Orissa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.20581 of 2017
1. Pranab Kishore Pattnaik
2. Smt. Geetanjali Bachha
3. Guru Muduli
4. Smt. Pratima Kujur
5. Smt. Subasini Bhoi
6. Prasant Kumar Das Adhikary
7. Ms. Priyadarshini Dash
8. Smt. Gopamudra Panda
9. Laba Hantal
10. Manoj Kumar Sahu
11. Abhijit Parida
12. Ms. Namita Rath ....
Petitioners Mr. B. Routray, Senior Advocate -versus1. State of Odisha
2. Orissa Model Tribal Education Society (OMTES)
3. Director, S.T. & S.C Development Department -cum- Member Secretary
4. Union of India
5. Government of Odisha represented through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department Opp. Parties Mr. R.N. Mishra Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Bigyan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2 ....
// 2 // Mr. Achyutananda Routray, Senior Panel Counsel for opposite party no.4
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO Order No.
ORDER
06.12.2022 I.A. No.14929 of 2022 04.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application for impletion of the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, Government of Odisha represented through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Lokseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, district Khurda is arrayed as opposite party no.5.
Since the learned counsel for the State is also representing such party, no further notice need be served on the opposite party no.5.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
I.A. No.14865 of 2022 05.
This is an application for deletion of the names of the petitioners nos.5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24 and
// 3 // 25, namely, Smt. Rasmi Kiran Sethy, Smt. Madhumita Tanti, Smt. Tejaswini Takri, Bibek Bhushan Pradhan, Santosh Satapathy, Ratnakar Nayak, Smt. Minati Mohapatra, Smt. Shradhanjali Panda, Satyaban Tarei, Ms.
Shradhanjali Mohakud, Satyabrata Rout, Chintamani Jena and Bodorath Pratap respectively from the cause title.
Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for opposite party no.4 has no serious objection. Considering the averments made in the interim application and on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the prayer is allowed.
The names of the petitioners nos.5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are deleted from the cause title.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.20581 of 2017 06.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the consolidated cause title, which is taken on record. Heard Mr. Budhadeb Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned
// 4 // Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of Odisha, Mr.
Bigyan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 Orissa Model Tribal Education Society (OMTES) and Mr. Achyutananda Routray, Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.4. Prayer has been made in this writ petition to declare the resolution dated 28.06.2017 passed in the 26th meeting of Board of Governors of Odisha Model Tribal Education Society (OMTES) as invalid and inoperative and for regularization of the services of the petitioners.
It is the case of the petitioners that they are the teaching and non-teaching staff of one of the Ekalavya Model Residential Schools, namely, Ekalavya Model Residential School, Mahasingi in the district of Kandhamal and they are continuing since 2004 and the opposite parties are not regularizing their services against the respective posts, which are created and sanctioned by the competent authority i.e. opposite party no.1. It is the further stated that the petitioners being treated as contractual teachers are getting a very meager amount towards their remuneration though the petitioners are all qualified against their respective posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similar matters were filed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20401 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.20426 of 2017 and both the matters were analogously heard and disposed of by a common judgment dated 29.09.2022 and this case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said judgment.
// 5 // The copy of the judgment was handed to the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and on perusal of the same, he does not dispute such aspect. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Taking into account the observation made by this Court in paragraphs-14, 15 and 16 of the judgment, it is ordered that the matter needs to be revisited by the Finance Department keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Finance Department (opposite party no.5) to consider the proposal of the Administrative Department afresh in terms of the observations made in the judgment passed in the connected writ petitions disposed of on 29.09.2022. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order or on production of certified copy thereof by the petitioners. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
RKM