IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22583 of 2017 CNR No. ODHC010423632017 Suresh Chandra Dhal …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Panda, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate -versus- Rourkela Municipal Corporation & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Nayak, Adv. for O.P.1 & 2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 03.09.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court shall be pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties and upon hearing the parties, be further pleased to pass writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, more particularly issue: i) Writ of certiorari quashing order dtd. 11.09.2017 passed by the Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition; ii) Writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties, more particularly Opp. Party No. 2 & 3 to engage the Petitioner in any suitable Class-IV post under the Opp. Party No. 1 forthwith; iii) Writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Party No. 4 to take suitable action for regularizing the service of the Petitioner as Tube Well Helper or in any other suitable post considering the list under Annexure-2 under the Opp. Party No. 1 within a specified period; iv) And pass any such order as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; And for the act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray..” 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a NMR under the Opposite Party-Corporation on the ground that Petitioner remained unauthorized absent for a period of 15 days, he was disengaged retrospectively effect w.e.f. 17.03.2016 vide order dtd.11.09.2017 of Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the ground of unauthorized absence for a period of 15 days, Petitioner could not have been disengaged that too from a retrospective date, which is not permissible in the eye of law. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that office order dtd.11.09.2017 so issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7, requires interference of this Court. 5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 12.01.2018, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet by the Opposite Party-Corporation in spite of due appearance. 5.1. However, Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Corporation basing on the available materials contended that the Petitioner since remained on unauthorized absent for around of 14 months. Petitioner was disengaged w.e.f. 17.03.2016 vide order dtd.11.09.2017 under Annexure- 7. However, in the impugned order a wrong has been committed by Opposite Party No.3 in holding that because of unauthorized absence for a period of 15 days, Petitioner was so disengaged. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Petitioner while continuing as a NMR under Annexures-1 & 2, he was disengaged on the ground of unauthorized absent for a period of 15 days w.e.f. 17.03.2016, vide the impugned order dtd.11.09.2017 under Annexure-7. 6.1. Submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 that such an action was taken, because of unauthorized absent of the Petitioner for a period of 14 months is not acceptable as Petitioner was disengaged on the ground of unauthorized absence for a period of 15 days. It is also the view of this Court that disengagement with retrospective effect is not permissible, Petitioner being a NMR at the relevant point of time. 6.2. Be that as it may, since Petitioner has already been disengaged vide order dtd.11.09.2017, it is observed that if any application is made by the Petitioner for his re-engagement before Opposite Party No.2, the same shall be favorably considered by re- engaging the Petitioner as a NMR within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of such approach. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Judge