WP(C)/11884/2024 of MAHEBUB ALLAM Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 3 September 2026

ORDER

03.09.2026 Order No.07

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Pursuant to order dtd.07.09.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Panchayatiraj & D.W. Department in its letter dtd.08.05.2026. The same be kept in record.

3. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing the observation made by the Opposite Party No.2 in its order dated 21.02.2024 and also the directions issued by the

Opposite Party No. 2 to the Opposite Party No.3 in Memo No. 4115 dated 21.02.2024. And further the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 to count the service rendered by the petitioner as GPTA from his initial date of engagement for the purpose of absorbing the petitioner in the post of Junior Engineer with all service benefits. And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray.”

5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Gram Panchayat Technical Assistant (GPTA) after being sponsored by the Chairman, Committee of Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief on contractual basis vide order dtd.20.11.2007 under Annexure-1.

5.1. It is however contended that Petitioner while so continuing, because of his involvement in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dtd.15.02.2016 was disengaged w.e.f.16.02.2016, vide order dtd.22.02.2016 under Annexure-2.

5.2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was so disengaged only because of his involvement in the aforesaid vigilance case. It is however contended that in the said vigilance proceeding, Petitioner when was acquitted vide judgment dtd.26.02.2021 in G.R. Case No. 05/2016 (V) / T.R. Case No. 24/2016, the Department moved this Court seeking leave to appeal in CRLLP No. 21 of 2021. However, the said leave petition was dismissed vide order dtd.06.12.2022 under Annexure-6.

5.3. It is contended that since Petitioner was disengaged because of his implication in the vigilance proceeding, but even after his acquittal vide judgment dtd.26.02.2021, Petitioner’s claim for re-engagement was rejected vide order dt.24.02.2022 under Annexure-5, on the ground of pendency of CRLLP No. 21 of 2021.

5.4. It is contended that challenging order dt.24.02.2022 Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12412 of 2022. This Court taking into account the dismissal of the leave petition in CRLLP No. 21/2021 vide order dt.06.12.2022, disposed of the writ petition vide order dt.12.12.2023 with quashing of order dt.24.02.2022 and with a direction to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim for re-engagement.

5.5. It is contended that pursuant to order dt.12.12.2023, Petitioner was re-engaged only vide order dt.21.02.2024 under Annexure-8.

5.6. It is contended that since Petitioner was duly appointed as a contractual GPTA on being referred by the Committee vide order dtd.20.11.2007 under Annexure-1 and he was disengaged because of his implication in the vigilance proceeding vide order dtd.22.02.2016 under Annexure-2, on his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding with dismissal of the leave petition, Petitioner while being re-engaged vide order dt.21.02.2024 under Annexure-8, his initial engagement w.e.f.20.01.2007 should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of extending the benefit of absorption in terms of the Resolution issued by the Panchayatiraj & D.W. Department on 19.03.2018. However, while re-engaging the Petitioner vide the impugned order dtd.21.02.2024 under Annexure-8, when it was indicated that previous engagement period shall not be counted towards absorption in the post of Jr. Engineer, challenging such stipulation in the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed.

5.7. It is vehemently contended that since the only ground of disengagement of the Petitioner was because of his involvement in the vigilance proceeding and Petitioner was honourably acquitted vide judgment dtd.26.02.2021 and leave sought for by the State to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal was also rejected vide order dtd.06.12.2022 under Annexure-6, while re-engaging the Petitioner vide order dt.21.02.2024, the engagement of the Petitioner vide order dt.20.11.2007 under Annexure-1, should have been taken into consideration to get the benefit of absorption, in terms of Resolution dtd.19.03.2018. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the stipulation contained in Annexure-8, for not counting the past service of the Petitioner for his absorption as Jr. Engineer, appropriate direction be issued to take into consideration the past engagement of the Petitioner w.e.f.20.11.2007 for his absorption in terms of resolution dtd.19.03.2018.

6. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 14.05.2024, but no counter affidavit has been filed. However, pursuant to order dtd.07.09.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel basing on the instruction contended that since Petitioner was re-engaged after his acquittal in the criminal proceeding vide order dtd.21.02.2024 under Annexure-8 with the condition that his past service will not be counted for the purpose of his absorption, and admittedly Petitioner has not completed the required six (6) years of engagement on contractual basis in terms of resolution dtd.19.03.2018 after being re-engaged vide order dt.21.02.2024 Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of absorption as a Junior Engineer.

6.1. It is contended that since Petitioner because of his implication in the vigilance proceeding was disengaged w.e.f.16.02.2016 vide order dtd.22.02.2016 under Annexure-2 and after his acquittal with dismissal of the leave petition, he was re-engaged vide order dtd.21.02.2024 under Annexure-8 with the condition that his past engagement will not be counted for the purpose of his absorption, action of the State in imposing such a condition cannot be found fault with. It is accordingly contended that challenge made to the stipulation contained in the impugned order that the past service will not be counted for the purpose of absorption, needs no interference and Petitioner will be absorbed after completion of six (6) years of engagement, to be counted from 21.02.2024.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner on being referred by the Committee of Chief Engineer being a Diploma holder, was engaged as a contractual GPTA vide order dtd.20.11.2007 under Annexure-1. It is found that while so continuing, because of his implication in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dtd.15.02.2016, he was disengaged w.e.f.16.02.2016 vide order dtd.22.02.2016 under Annexure-2 so issued by Opp. Party No. 2.

7.1. It is however found that in the said vigilance proceeding Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.26.02.2021 of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 5/2016 (V) / T.R. No. 24/2016. It is also found that seeking leave to appeal against such order of acquittal, State moved this Court in CRLLP No.21 of 2021. Because of pendency of the leave petition on the face of acquittal of the Petitioner, his claim for re-engagement was rejected vide order dt.24.02.2022 under Annexure-5. Even after dismissal of the leave petition vide order dtd.06.12.2022 under Annexure-6, Petitioner was given the benefit of re-engagement, pursuant to order dtd.12.12.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 12414 of 2022 under Annexure-7, vide order dtd.21.02.2024 under Annexure-8. However, as found, in the order of re-engagement, it was indicated that past period of engagement will not be counted for the purpose of getting the benefit of absorption.

7.2. Since it is not disputed that because of implication of the Petitioner in vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was disengaged w.e.f.16.02.2016 vide order dtd.22.02.2016 under Annexure-2 and Petitioner has been acquitted in the vigilance proceeding with the leave being rejected by this Court, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner while being re- engaged vide order dtd.21.02.2024, no such stipulation should have been incorporated by saying that past period of engagement will not be counted for the purpose of absorption of the Petitioner as a Jr. Engineer.

7.3. It is also found from the record that by the time Petitioner was disengaged w.e.f.16.02.2016 vide order dt.22.02.2016, he had already completed the required 6 (six) years of engagement as a contractual GPTA and was eligible to get the benefit of absorption in terms of resolution dtd.19.03.2018 of the Department.

7.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while disposing the writ petition, is inclined to quash the stipulation contained in order dt.21.02.2024 under Annexure-8, wherein it has been held that past period of engagement will not be counted for the purpose of absorption of the Petitioner as a Jr. Engineer. While quashing the stipulation, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to absorb the Petitioner in terms of resolution dtd.19.03.2018 as against the post of Junior Engineer, holding that Petitioner has already completed 6 years of engagement on contractual basis. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to pass an appropriate order by absorbing the Petitioner as against the post of Junior Engineer from the date of completion of six (6) years of engagement, taking his date of engagement as 20.11.2007 and from the date when similarly situated contractual GPTAs were so absorbed in terms of Resolution dt.19.03.2018. However, Petitioner will not be permitted to claim any service and financial benefit on such absorption, save and except extension of the benefit on notional basis. Petitioner is also directed to furnish an undertaking in that regard along with a copy of this order before Opp. Party No. 1 for compliance.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2026 11:24:47 Signature Not Verified