Advocates:
['M/S SANTOSH KU SWAIN', '', 'H', 'D R RAT', 'S K ROUT', 'S C BAIRIGANJAN']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 1330 of 2012

Bipin Bihari Panda

&..

Petitioner

Mr. S.K. Swain, Advocate

Vs.

State of Odisha & Others

&..

Opposite parties

Mr. P.K. Panda,

S.C., S&ME Deptt.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

21.03.2022

Order No.

09.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. S.K. Swain, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel for

School and Mass Education Department.

3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging

the

order

dated

07.12.2011

passed

by

the

State

Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.

No.1122(C) of 2010 at Annexure-10, whereby the original

application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by

holding that the termination of the petitioner is valid in the

eye of law.

4.

Mr. S.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently contended before this Court that though the

petitioner was appointed as a peon in the scale of pay of

Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200

with

admissible

D.A.

in

Brahmapura High School, Brahmapura, Banki on ad hoc

2

basis for a period of 44 days with one day gap in between

each term till the post is filled up on regular basis in

accordance with the rules, but his appointment was

terminated vide Annexure-4 dated 16.05.2001 on the grounds

mentioned therein. Such action of the authority being

arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provision of law,

the petitioner approached the State Administrative Tribunal,

Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.1122(C) of 2010, but the

Tribunal, without understanding the facts in proper

prospective, dismissed the original application vide order

dated 07.12.2011. Therefore, the petitioner has approached

this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5.

Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel for School

and Mass Education Department contended that the

petitioner was appointed, vide order dated 05.11.1999 at

Annexure-1, in which it was specifically mentioned that the

ad hoc appointment of the petitioner shall be terminated at

any time without assigning any reason. Therefore, before

regular appointment is made, the authority has got every

power to terminate the ad hoc services of the petitioner.

Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by

the authority in terminating his service. More so, the

petitioner was well aware of the conditional order of

appointment dated 05.11.1999, which clearly indicates that

his service is terminable one. Even though the petitioner was

allowed certain service benefits by opening service book, that

ipso facto cannot disentitle the authority to terminate the

service of the petitioner, as the same cannot accrue any right

in favour of the petitioner. Taking into consideration all

3

aspects, the Tribunal has dismissed the original application

filed by the petitioner and, as such, no illegality or

irregularity has been committed by the Tribunal so as to

warrant interference by this Court.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner

was appointed as a peon in the school in question on ad hoc

basis, pursuant to letter dated 05.11.1999, in periodical terms

of 44 days with one day gap in between each term till the

post is filled up on regular basis in accordance with the

Rules, with the condition that the ad hoc appointment of the

petitioner can be terminated at any time without assigning

any reason. In pursuance of such order of appointment, the

petitioner joined in the school on 05.01.2000 and, thereafter,

the Headmaster issued letter dated 21.01.2000 for sanction of

an amount Rs.1500/- towards one time refundable deposit to

GIS in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, his ad hoc

appointment for periodical terms of 44 days with one day gap

in between e