Expressing displeasure over a writ petition filed by the State Government against one of its own employees, the Orissa High Court has stated, “Some individual officer of senior rank is inspiring or initiating such course of action which amounts to gross abuse of the process of the court.”
Dismissing the writ petition, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DH Waghela and Justice Biswanath Rath said, “At the instance of the court, a message needs to go to instil a sense of seriousness and responsibility among the officers, who, by their sheer adamant attitude or non-application of mind, cast unnecessary burden of deciding non-issues upon the court so as to further drain the limited resource and time available with the judiciary.”
The High Court imposed a cost of `10,000 with specific order to deposit the same before the Odisha State legal Service Authority and to recover the amount from the officer concerned.
The case pertains to one Hiralal Meher working as an NMR employee since 1980 under the Water Resources Department. Meher had approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) to transfer him to the Work Charged Establishment. The tribunal disposed of the matter with a direction to consider his case from the date his junior was brought over and, accordingly, to grant him service benefits.
The department passed an appropriate direction to the EIC to implement the OAT’s direction. However, an officer of the Finance Department created hindrance, for which a writ petition was filed by the Government in the High Court against the order of tribunal.
The High Court observed, “If the State Government fights against one of its Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) employees since 1980, what fate awaits the employee caught in the crossfire between two departments is exemplified by this case.”
During the hearing, the Government counsel did not name any particular officer but submitted that it was the Finance Department which had raised objection against implementation of the Government’s own order. “Such inter-departmental conflict or rivalry appears to have cost a poor employee the benefit to which his family would have been entitled since long,” remarked the High Court.
After disposal of the case, in which huge amount was spent by the State, the Government may approach the Supreme Court against the HC judgment or may implement the OAT’s direction, which has been upheld by the HC.
Besides, the State is also bound to identify the officer responsible for such inter-departmental crossfire and take appropriate action against him including realisation of the cost imposed by the HC, opined a legal expert.