Harapriya Nanda vs State Of Odisha And Others

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

I.A. No.302 of 2024 & W.A. No.307 of 2024

This appeal is barred by limitation and accordingly, the I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay of 318 days in filing the writ appeal.

The appellant-petitioner has preferred an Original Application before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal giving rise to O.A. No.2966 of 2016 which came to be transferred to this Court upon abolition of the Tribunal and registered as W.P.(C) (OA) No.2966 of 2016 which came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 15.02.2023 which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. The appellant-petitioner had filed the case for quashing of an order dated 06.12.2016 (Annexure-13) with a further prayer to direct the opposite party No.3 to consider his case for her appointment as Stipendiary Engineer (Civil) against the vacancy that had arisen in 1993-94.

Learned Single Judge after having examined the merits of the case concluded in paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 as under:-

“7.3. From the material placed before this court, it is found that even though the Petitioner was empanelled for her appointment as a Stipendiary Engineer with assignment of Serial Number and Rank for the year 1991, but similarly situated candidates empanelled in the year 1991 were appointed as Stipendiary Engineers on being sponsored vide order dated 30.03.1994 under Annexure-10/1. The said appointees were subsequently appointed as regular Asst. Engineer by virtue of the Validation Act issued by the Government. Vide letter dated 20.09.1994 under Annexure-6. The Opposite Party No.2 though sponsored the name of the Petitioner to Opposite Party No.3 for her appointment as Stipendiary Engineers on 20.09.1994 but the same was kept pending till 29.03.2001. Vide letter dated 29.03.2001 under Annexure-7, the Petitioner was only intimated that the Department is unable to provide appointment to the Petitioner as there is a bar for such appointment of Stipendiary Engineers on and after 01.10.1994 as per the decision taken by the High Power Committee.

7.4. In view of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-8, which was not interfered with when challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6177 of 2007, it is the view of this Court that the prayer as made in the Writ Petition cannot be entertained at present. However, taking into account the sufferings meted out to the Petitioner and the alleged discrimination meted out to her, this Court basing on the decisions as cited (supra) is inclined to held the Petitioner entitled to get compensation as the Petitioner because of the inaction of the Opp. Parties was deprived of her livelihood, which amounts to violation of Article-21 of the Constitution of India.”

After having held as noted above, learned Single Judge concluded that the petitioner was entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh). In the present appeal, the appellant claims that more amount of compensation ought to have been granted by the learned Single Judge than what has been granted.

Be that as it may, we have perused the explanation put forth in this application seeking condonation of delay. According to the appellant, she was suffering from diabetes and hypertension and therefore, she was advised bed rest and thereafter, she had been under regular treatment. The explanation so put forth by the appellant for condoning the delay does not appear to be satisfactory.

The I.A. is, accordingly, dismissed.

Consequently, W.A. No.307 of 2024 also stands dismissed.

.…………………………….