Orissa high court issues notice to state govt over PIL against officers' strike
Cuttack: Orissa high court on Tuesday issued notice to the state govt on a PIL alleging inaction against members of the Odisha Administrative Service (OAS) Association and the Orissa Revenue Employees Sangha (ORES), who had gone on strike in violation of service conduct rules. The state has been asked to file its response within a week.
The PIL was filed by Pratap Chandra Sahoo, a Cuttack resident, seeking strict enforcement of the Orissa Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959, which bars govt employees from participating in any form of strike. Sahoo has urged the court to direct the govt to initiate disciplinary measures — including wage cuts, suspension or dismissal — against officials who abstained from work. Advocate Anup Kumar Mohapatra made submissions on behalf of the petitioner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman observed that the allegations required a formal response from the state. Additional govt advocate Debashis Tripathy represented the state.
According to the petition, the controversy began after OAS officer Ratnakar Sahoo was assaulted inside the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) office on June 30. Police arrested corporator Jeevan Rout and two associates soon after the incident. The OAS Association, however, accused another corporator, Jagannath Pradhan, of being the mastermind and demanded his arrest. In protest, OAS officers across more than 20 districts went on mass leave, paralysing administrative work for two days.
The petition claimed that despite the protest constituting a clear breach of service conduct norms, state govt failed to act. The alleged inaction, it stated, emboldened ORES, which launched a week-long strike from Aug 11 over a 10-point charter of demands, including pay revision and health insurance.
Sahoo’s petition stresses that Section 8 of the 1959 Rules prohibits any strike by state govt employees. It also refers to the Centre’s 1957 amendment to the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, which bars strikes and protests linked to service conditions.
Terming the strikes a “violation of the rule of law”, the petitioner has sought directions to ensure strict action against officials who participated in the protests. The bench will take up the matter after the state files its reply.
The PIL was filed by Pratap Chandra Sahoo, a Cuttack resident, seeking strict enforcement of the Orissa Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959, which bars govt employees from participating in any form of strike. Sahoo has urged the court to direct the govt to initiate disciplinary measures — including wage cuts, suspension or dismissal — against officials who abstained from work. Advocate Anup Kumar Mohapatra made submissions on behalf of the petitioner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman observed that the allegations required a formal response from the state. Additional govt advocate Debashis Tripathy represented the state.
According to the petition, the controversy began after OAS officer Ratnakar Sahoo was assaulted inside the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) office on June 30. Police arrested corporator Jeevan Rout and two associates soon after the incident. The OAS Association, however, accused another corporator, Jagannath Pradhan, of being the mastermind and demanded his arrest. In protest, OAS officers across more than 20 districts went on mass leave, paralysing administrative work for two days.
The petition claimed that despite the protest constituting a clear breach of service conduct norms, state govt failed to act. The alleged inaction, it stated, emboldened ORES, which launched a week-long strike from Aug 11 over a 10-point charter of demands, including pay revision and health insurance.
Sahoo’s petition stresses that Section 8 of the 1959 Rules prohibits any strike by state govt employees. It also refers to the Centre’s 1957 amendment to the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, which bars strikes and protests linked to service conditions.
Terming the strikes a “violation of the rule of law”, the petitioner has sought directions to ensure strict action against officials who participated in the protests. The bench will take up the matter after the state files its reply.
Next Story