A party unlawfully dis-engaged from work may be entitled to remuneration despite subsequent reinstatement, and no application under Section 68 of the Co-operative Societies Act is needed if no dispute exists.

ORDER :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of the Professional Fees in terms of the agreement dated 09.07.2019, so executed in between the petitioner and Opp. Party-Bank under Annexure-1, for the period 01.07.2020 to 28.10.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that basing on the agreement so executed under Annexure- 1, petitioner was engaged as a Banking IT Expert and in terms of the agreement, petitioner was due to continue up-to 23.06.2021, so reflected in Para-3 of the agreement.

4.1. It is contended that even though in terms of the agreement petitioner was due to continue up-to 23.06.2021, but petitioner when was illegally dis-engaged from his work vide office order dated 30.06.2020 under Annexure-2, so issued by the President of the Bank, petitioner made a request for his re-engagement on the very same date.

4.2. It is contended that in consideration of such request made by the petitioner in his representation dated 17.08.2020 under Annexure-3 and earlier representation made on 30.06.2020 as well as 30.07.2020, petitioner was reinstated in his work vide order dated 27.10.2020 under Annexure-4. While allowing the petitioner to resume his duty in terms of Annexure-1, order dated 30.06.2020 was set aside by Opp. Party No.1.

4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since in terms of the agreement, petitioner was due to continue till 23.06.2021 and he was illegally dis-engaged vide order dated 30.06.2020 under Annexure- 2 and on the face of the request made by the petitioner on 30.06.2020, 06.07.2020, 30.07.2020 and 17.08.2020 so reflected under Annexure-3, petitioner was suo-moto re-engaged and allowed to discharge his duty vide order dated 27.10.2020 under Annexure-4, where he joined on 16.11.2020 and subsequently resigned vide letter dated 18.11.2020 under Annexure- 7, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of remuneration for the period he was illegally kept out of his work because of the illegal order of dis-engagement issued on 06.07.2020 under Annexure-3 and for the period 01.07.2020 to 28.10.2020.

4.4. However, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned communication dated 05.01.2021 under Annexure-8. It is contended that since in terms of the agreement made under Annexure-1 and on the face of his eligibility to continue till 23.06.2021, he was dis-engaged vide order dated 30.06.2020 and re- engaged vide order dated 27.10.2020 under Annexure- 4, for the break period of engagement, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of his fee as due and admissible. But the same has been illegally rejected vide the impugned communication dated 05.01.2021 under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that impugned rejection is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set-aside.

5. Mr. K.P. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand while supporting the impugned rejection, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that taking into account the issue involved in the present case, petitioner has to move an application as provided under Section 68 of the Co- operative Societies Act before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

5.1. It is also contended that since petitioner never discharged his duty/work for the period involved, he is not entitled to get the benefit of the remuneration and the same has been rightly rejected vide the impugned