January to March 2013 for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

14CourtNewsMANOJ KUMAR BISWAL-V- CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.15695 OF 2006 (Dt.19.03.2012)SERVICE – DLR employees – Preparation of Gradation list – Consideration of initial date ofappointment on casual or DLR basis is important.In this case petitioner was engaged as DLR employee by C.D.A. through Balashrama w.e.f.15.3.1989 and was getting wages through Balashrama and he got direct payments from C.D.A. w.e.f.21.8.1992 – Private Opp.Parties engaged in the year 1990 – In the provisional gradation list petitionerwas placed at Sl.No.7 and Opp.Parties 5 to 9 were placed at Sl.No.8,9, 11, 12 & 13 respectively –C.D.A. took a decision to revise the provisional gradation list and make it final by taking into account thedate of receipt of wages by the D.L.R. employees directly from C.D.A. which is under challenge – Held,the decision of C.D.A. is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminating and unjust – Preparation of final gradationlist is quashed – Direction issued to C.D.A. authority to prepare the gradation list of D.L.R. Junior Asstswho were initially appointed/engaged on casual or DLR basis by taking into account their past service asDLR from the date of their initial appointment/engagement.(B. P. Das, J. & B. K. Nayak, J.)GIRIDHARI MISHRA-V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.11404 OF 2004 (Dt.16.11.2012)P. I. L. – Crop loss due to natural calamites – Central Government introduced National AgriculturalScheme through concerned State Governments for Crop insurance by farmers – In Odisha each “Block”has been taken as an unit i.e. “Defined area” under the Scheme for assessment of loss of Crops – Sincepetitioner’s land is not irrigated he sustained crop loss but failed to receive insurance claim as most ofthe agricultural lands of his block are irrigated – Hence the writ petition.When premium have been collected by the Insurance Company on individual basis the Insuranceclaim should be settled on individual basis or taking Gram Panchayat as “Defined area” – Held, directionissued to the State Government to consider petitioners claim declaring the “Defined area” under theScheme to take “Gram Panchayat” as a unit and not the “Block” for the purpose of granting insuranceclaim.(V. Gopala Gowda, CJ & B. N. Mahapatra, J.)PATHANI JENA & ORS.-V- STATE OF ORISSACRLA. NO.126 OF 2006 (Dt.05.09.2012)CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – S.161.Delayed disclosure of incident by witnesses – Explanation offered not convincing – Held, it wouldnot be safe to accept the testimony of such dubious witnesses.In this case occurrence took place on 11.11.2004 and P.Ws. 3 and 4 stated to be eye witnesseswere not examined till 18.11.2004 although police had made several visits to the occurrence village –P.W.3 has also admitted that he is in inimical terms with the accused persons – P.W.4 has given falseexplanation that he was examined on the next day of the incident – P.W.10, the I.O. introduced P.Ws.3& 4 as eye witnesses just to solve the case – Held, evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is highly infirm and it isnot safe to rely on their evidence – Impugned judgment and order of sentence are set aside.( L. Mohapatra, J & C.R. Dash, J.)