Delays of over 20 years in challenging termination negate claims for relief, but compensation for unutilized leave salary is warranted.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of her representation, seeks a directive from this Court to set aside the termination order of Late Jagannath Bidhar and to award compensation for the period of his premature termination.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) Late Jagannath Bidhar, the husband of the petitioner, was employed as a conductor with ORT Company Ltd. on 23.05.1973. He continued in service after OSRTC took over ORT Company Ltd. on 28.02.1997.

(ii) His services were prematurely terminated on 28.02.1997 under the provisions of Standing Order No. 13(1)(a) and 2(e) of the Certified Standing Order, 1974. The termination was approved by resolutions of the OSRTC Board and included the payment of three months’ salary and allowances in lieu of notice.

(iii) The opposite parties allege that Jagannath Bidhar committed fraud by providing a false date of birth to extend his service tenure. While the service book records reveals his date of birth as 01.03.1942 but he claimed it to be 02.03.1945.

(iv) The petitioner challenged the premature retirement order in 2017, eight years after her husband’s death in 2009. Notably, during his lifetime, Jagannath Bidhar did not challenge the termination order.

(v) The opposite parties acknowledge that an unutilized leave salary of Rs.9,289/- remains pending for payment.

(vi) The OSRP Rules, 1998, which provide enhanced financial benefits, were implemented after the retirement of Jagannath Bidhar. It is contended that these rules are inapplicable to him.

(vii) The petitioner submitted representations seeking compensation for the termination and payment of arrears. Following this, the Court directed OSRTC to consider the petitioner’s representation/ but the representation was rejected by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of OSRTC on 04.04.2018.

(viii) Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking a directive from this Court to quash the termination order of Late Jagannath Bidhar and to compensate for the period following his premature termination.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner submitted that, the termination order dated 05.02.1997, was passed under provisions already declared unconstitutional. The termination violated Articles 14, 39(c), and 41 of the Constitution of India and was arbitrary, unjust, and without due process.

(ii) He further submitted that OSRTC failed to amend the Standing Orders in compliance with the Court’s earlier rulings in 1988 and 2017.

(iii) The petitioner further contended that the termination order was issued without informing her husband of any allegations or grounds, depriving him of an opportunity to explain or defend himself.

(iv) He further contended that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director acted as both, the recommender and the approver of the termination, violating the principle that no one should be a judge in his own case.

(v) The petitioner argued that her husband was terminated six years before his superannuation, from 01.03.1997 to 31.03.2003. In a similar case (Nimai Pani), the Court granted a lump sum compensation Rs.1,50,000/- which should be extended to the petitioner as well.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It is