Barman, C.J:— In this writ petition the petitioner who was an Assistant Labour Officer under the Government of Orissa challenges the action of the Labour Commissioner, Orissa (opposite party no. 3) in not allowing him to join as District Labour Officer in the circumstances hereinafter stated.
2. The petitioner, M.A in Labour and Social Welfare, was appointed as Assistant Labour Officer on July 18, 1960 on the basis of a written and viva voce test in which the petitioner was stated to have stood first. On October 5, 1961 the petitioner was informed that his services would no longer be required after one month from the date of issue of the said order. This order of discharge is, however, stated to be arbitrary as appears from the order of the Minister-in-charge which was put on record in a letter of the Secretary to Government, Tribal & Rural Welfare Department to the Additional Secretary to Government, Home and Labour Department, dated March 20, 1955 which was produced before us in course of hearing of this writ petition. By an order dated December 12, 1961 the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from November 24, 1951 on which, date he actually handed over the charge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation to Government against the order of termination of his services. On January 24, 1964 the Government passed an order on the said representation reinstating the petitioner. The relevant portion of the said order setting aside the order dated December 12, 1961 is set out as follows:
“Govt. have therefore been pleased to set aside your order No. 23175 dated the 12th December, 1961 terminating the Services of Sri Anand Sahu and to order that he should be reinstated with effect from the date of discharge. He will be deemed to have continued in service and be entitled to all the benefits of service. If there was no vacancy in existence, the period during which there was no vacancy and the funds if any required may be reported so that a post may be created for the period in question. If at present there is no vacancy, the junior most officer should make room for Sri Sahu.”
3. This order was subsequently clarified by the Government by an order dated February 8, 1964, the relevant portion of which is quoted below:
“The expression ‘all the benefits’ mentioned in the above letter referring to the order dated January 24, 1964 includes prospects of promotion. If Sri Sahu lost them only because he was not available, they should be restored to him.”
4. Thereafter, the petitioner could not or did not join his post as Assistant Labour Officer in his circumstances which we need not go not in details herein. It is clear that ultimately the petitioner was agreeable to join as Assistant Labour Officer and the Government also were agreeable to allow him to join as such. In fact, in his letter dated September 7, 1964 the petitioner wrote to the Labour Commissioner stating that on the same date he had received Labour Commissioner's Memo No. 10213 dated August 25, 1964 directing him to report himself to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur, for duty as Assistant Labour Officer in the Zonal Labour Office, Sambalpur, by September, 5, 1954; the petitioner stated that he had not been able to join at Sambalpur by September 5, 1964 in obedience to the said order, in his said letter the petitioner solicited the favour of further orders from the Commissioner to which it is said that the Labour Commissioner uptil now has not sent any reply.
5. Ia these circumstances, we are satisfied that Government should give an opportunity to the petitioner to join as Assistant Labour Officer on the basis of the order of reinstatement contained in Government letter No. 11M-79/62/758.Lab dated January 24, 1964. We accordingly direct the opposite parties to implement the said order dated January 24, 1968 read with the subsequent clarification of the said order, contained in Government letter No. 11M-76/62/1475.Lab. dated February 8, 1964.
6. We accordingly direct the petitioner to report and join as Assistant Labour Officer, to the Labour Commissioner by September 1, 1968, and also direct the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to se report and join as Assistant Labour Officer and thereafter post him appropriately as they may think fit and proper.
7. This writ petition is allowed in terms aforesaid. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Acharya, J.:— I agree.
8. Petition allowed.