Orissa High Court Awards Rs 5 Lakh Compensation to Job-Seeker After Two-Decade Legal Battle
The Orissa High Court has delivered a landmark judgment, awarding Rs 5 lakh in compensation to a job-seeker who was denied appointment for over two decades despite a tribunal order in his favor. This significant ruling highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring justice for citizens facing bureaucratic delays and non-compliance.
Background of the Case
The case involves Sudhansu Nanda, who had applied for a driver position under the office of the chief district medical officer in Sambalpur. In 1999, Nanda was selected for the post and even received an appointment letter, but he was never accommodated in the position. This forced him to approach the State Administrative Tribunal to seek redressal.
Legal Proceedings and Tribunal Order
On September 5, 2002, the tribunal allowed Nanda's petition, directing his appointment. However, the state authorities failed to comply with this order, leading Nanda to initiate contempt proceedings in 2003. Despite this, the contempt case remained pending for over 14 years, with the tribunal eventually dropping the proceedings in 2017.
Nanda then filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court, challenging the tribunal's decision to dismiss the contempt plea. A division bench comprising Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash heard the case and delivered their order on January 20, which was uploaded on January 28.
Court's Observations and Criticism
The High Court strongly criticized the state's argument that the 2002 tribunal order was merely recommendatory and unenforceable. The bench rejected this contention, stating, "We fail to understand as to how the tribunal could have dismissed the contempt plea and thereby dropped the contempt proceeding" when the order was not complied with "in letter & spirit."
The court expressed bewilderment at the prolonged delay, noting, "It bewilders any sensible mind that a contempt proceeding would linger on for such a long period." It emphasized that Nanda's right to appointment had crystallized and that the denial caused "wrong coupled with damage."
Compensation Awarded
In its ruling, the bench held that courts cannot leave a successful litigant remediless. It stated that secondary relief must be granted when primary relief becomes impractical. Accordingly, the court directed the state to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to Nanda within six weeks.
The court specified that if the payment is not made within this timeframe, an additional penalty of Rs 500 per day would be levied, recoverable from the erring officials. This compensation was granted "in lieu of direction for appointment" due to the state's pleaded administrative difficulties.
Broader Implications
The judgment underscores the importance of clear and enforceable court orders. The bench remarked, "The litigants come to court/tribunal not for just getting some order howsoever they are texted… No court can say that its order is unenforceable." It also criticized ambiguous drafting, adding, "If language is not properly employed, then what is said, is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what needs to be done would remain undone or is misdone."
This case serves as a reminder of the legal system's duty to provide timely justice and hold authorities accountable for non-compliance. It also highlights the challenges faced by individuals in securing their rights against bureaucratic inertia.
