Read Time: 06 minutes

Holding that the Orissa Administrative Tribunal erred in condoning the delay of nearly 14 years in preferring the Original Application by one Buda Batri, the Supreme Court held that,

"Reappointment after nearly 14 years would create chaos and would not be in the interest of administration."

The top court further noted that the fact is that Batri had accepted the letter of termination, showed that the grievance raised is an afterthought and an attempt to raise a stale claim after he had already come to terms with the termination.

"Indulgence and grant of relief in one case may well have unacceptable consequences as appointments of sevaks in terms the recruitment rules would have been made. Further, several others, notwithstanding the delay, would make a claim on the ground of parity pleading that the period of delay would be inconsequential", observed a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi.

Batri was appointed as a Sevak in 1997 and was terminated within a month.

The letter of appointment stated that the appointment was purely temporary and terminable at any time without assigning any reason.

In 2012, Batri  preferred an Original Application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal challenging the letter of termination . An application for condonation of delay of nearly 14 years in challenging the letter was also filed.

Application for condonation of delay and the Original Application were allowed, holding that Batri would continue at the job of sevak.

A review application filed by the State was dismissed. Aggrieved, the State approached the High Court, which plea was also dismissed by the impugned order passed in 2018.

Batri argued before top court that some other sevaks, whose appointments were also cancelled, approached the tribunal and obtained favourable orders. He added that being a tribal, he did not have resources and means to approach the court/tribunal and therefore the orders of the tribunal and the High Court are justified and fair.

The state submitted that only in about nine cases, orders of reinstatement were passed pursuant to orders passed by the tribunal.

In those cases, the appointees had approached the tribunal immediately after the termination order and a vigilance inquiry was conducted and as per the report, the recruitment process in which Batri was appointed suffered from material irregularities and illegalities. In most cases, the order of the reinstatement has not been passed due to the vigilance report, the court was informed.

"While some others had approached the tribunal, the respondent, though similarly situated and of identical social and economic background, did not. He had accepted and acquiesced to the letter of termination.....", noted the top court.

Also, noting that the appointment itself was temporary, and having been appointed as a sevak, Batri was aware of his rights, the top court went on to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Case Title: THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. vs. BUDA BATRI