Orissa High Court
Afr Malati Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others ……. Opp. … on 5 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 31313 of 2024
(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India)
---------------
AFR Malati Sahoo ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. Akshaya Kumar Pandey, D.N. Mishra,
N. Acharya, Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
5th April, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Non-renewal of agency under Mahila
Pradhan Khetriya Bachat Yojana (MPKBY) is the grievance of
the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an authorized agent
under the MPKBY as per certificate issued by the Collector,
Rayagada on 15.05.2000. Her work as an agent was to collect
money from persons of the area for investment in
Page 1 of 15
P.O.C.T.D./P.O. Recurring Deposits Account. She was also
authorized to issue receipts for the money received and to
obtain Pass Books on behalf of investors from the Post Office to
deliver to them. Her area of work was within Therubali and she
was attached with Rayagada S.F.S.P.O., Therubali S.P.O. Her
agency was renewed each year since 2000, the last such
renewal being due to expire on 26.06.2024. Basing on her
application for renewal, the District Small Savings and
Financial Inclusion Officer, Rayagada (opposite party No.4)
wrote to the Sub-Postmaster, Sugar Factory, S.O., Rayagada to
allow the petitioner to transact her business at the Sub-Office
till 15.07.2023 on the ground that her application for renewal
was under process. The petitioner claims to have submitted
further application on 06.05.2024 for renewal of her agency but
it was not accepted by opposite party No.4 on the ground that
her husband was found to be working as GDS Packer in the
Postal Department and his name had been provided as
„Ramesh Chandra Sahoo‟ instead of „Ramakanta Sahoo‟. She
therefore, submitted a representation to the Collector,
Rayagada on 05.07.2024 ventilating her grievance. Since no
Page 2 of 15
action was taken, she again submitted a representation before
the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 & 4 by registered post on
06.09.2024. Upon receiving such representation, the ADM,
Rayagada, vide letter dated 27.09.2024 intimated her that
clarification regarding renewal of her agency is pending with
the Government and renewal would be considered upon receipt
of clarification. The petitioner further claims to have submitted
affidavit long time ago regarding mismatch of her husband‟s
name in the certificate and again submitted an affidavit sworn
before the Executive Magistrate, Rayagada stating that the
names „Ramesh Chandra Sahoo‟ and „Ramakanta Sahoo‟ refer
to one and the same person, i.e., her husband.
2.1 The petitioner, thereafter approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 27465 of 2024. During pendency of the writ
application, the Collector, vide order dated 25.11.2024
terminated her agency on the ground that near relatives of the
GDS are not eligible for appointment as Small Saving Agents
under MPKBY, there was deliberate suppression of facts in the
affidavit submitted before the appointing authority since
initiation of agency regarding name of the husband of the
Page 3 of 15
petitioner and she had not applied for renewal of her agency 45
days prior to expiry of the agency. In view of the above
intimation, the petitioner withdrew the above mentioned writ
application with liberty to file better application. Hence, the
present writ application.
3. According to the petitioner, as per the MPKBY Rules,
near relatives of the employees of the Department are not
eligible to be engaged as agents but the petitioner‟s husband,
being a Packer on adhoc basis, cannot be treated as a regular
employee. As such, said clause is not applicable to the
petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has collected huge amount
to the tune of Rs.11,77,50,000/- for the Department of Posts
during the period from July, 2023 to June, 2024. Because of
non-renewal of agency from June, 2024 to September, 2024
she has failed to deposit Rs.32,90,000/- which is a direct loss
to the State exchequer. On such facts, the petitioner has filed
this writ application with prayer to quash the order of
termination and for a direction to the authorities to restore her
licence.
Page 4 of 15
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party
No.4 reiterating the facts mentioned in the impugned order of
termination. It is specifically stated that the husband of the
petitioner, Ramakanta Sahoo is employed as GDS in the same
Post Office which is against the Rule as well as vitiates the
principles of fairness among agents. Further, the petitioner had
not applied for renewal of her agency 45 days prior to its
expiry. She had deliberately suppressed the fact that her
husband‟s name of Ramakanta Sahoo and instead she had
been providing his name is Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, which is
not an inadvertent error. It is further stated that MPKBY
agency is subject to renewal based on proper conduct and
performance to the satisfaction of the appointing authority. The
petitioner, by deliberate suppression of facts has breached the
trust of the Government. The petitioner never submitted the
application on 06.05.2024 and in any case, it was addressed to
the DSSO and not the appointing authority. On the other hand,
her grievance submitted before the Collector on 05.08.2024
was disposed of appropriately. The petitioner further misquoted
the letter dated 27.09.2024 of the ADM which was not a
Page 5 of 15
clarification regarding renewal of her agency but was a case of
renewal of her certificate of authority. Subsequently, the
Finance Department in its letter dated 01.11.2024 has issued
clarification that her certificate was valid till 26.06.2024 and in
view of absence of any application for renewal it is presumed
that said certificate has lapsed w.e.f. 27.06.2024. That apart,
repeated mention of fake name of her husband in relevant
papers including affidavit continuously for last 23 years is an
act of deliberate suppression of facts. The petitioner also
submitted another affidavit purportedly by her husband but by
jumbling the words therein. With regard to the amount of
money collected from the investors it is stated that the same
was without any authority and she has not deposited the said
amount, which is again a breach of duty. As regards the
contention that her husband not being a regular employee it is
stated that the same is inconsequential as he is in a position to
influence the depositors which violates the principle of fairness.
5. Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State.
Page 6 of 15
6. Mr. Pandey would argue that the stand taken by the
State that the petitioner never applied for renewal is completely
wrong and contrary to letter dated 26.06.2023 of the opposite
party No.4 as well as letter dated 27.09.2024. He further
argues that as per the MPKBY Rules, clause-3 specifically
mentions about near relatives of the employees of Department
of Posts as being ineligible for appointment as agents or
renewal of their existing agency, but the same is not applicable
to the petitioner as her husband is not a permanent/regular
employee of the Department of Posts but is a GDS (Packer). As
regards the allegation of suppression of facts, Mr. Pandey
would submit that after one year of engagement as agent the
petitioner having come to know about the mistake regarding
her husband‟s name, which was a typographical error, she
submitted repeated representations to the authorities to correct
the name and finally submitted an affidavit. Her husband also
submitted such affidavit. Mr. Pandey further relies upon a
judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Union of
India vs. K. Valsala Kumari1, wherein it was held that GDS is
1
O.P. (CAT) No. 9 of 2015 : 2020:KER:15815
Page 7 of 15
outside the Civil Service of the Union. Mr. Pandey therefore,
submits that the grounds taken by the authorities not renewing
her agency is therefore, bad in law.
7. Mr. Routray, learned State Counsel would argue that
the petitioner never submitted her application for renewal
before expiry of the certificate. She submitted application after
expiry of the period, i.e. on 05.09.2024, which was replied to.
Secondly, she is guilty of suppression of facts at the time of
appointment as agent and never submitted any application to
correct the so called mistake. The affidavit being self-serving in
nature cannot be considered. According to Mr. Routray, this
amounts to playing fraud with the Government. He further
argues that the deliberate suppression of name of her husband
was apparently because of the restriction imposed by the Rules
for engagement of agents of near relatives of employees of the
Department of Posts. The plea that the petitioner‟s husband is
not a regular employee is immaterial.
8. The petitioner‟s application for renewal having been
rejected, inter alia, on the ground of deliberate suppression of
facts, it would be apposite to deal with the same at first. The
Page 8 of 15
petitioner was appointed as an Agent and a certificate was
issued in her favour on 15.05.2000. Perusal of the certificate,
copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ application,
reveals that she has described herself as „w/o- Ramesh Ch.
Sahoo‟. It has not been disputed that her husband‟s name is in
fact „Ramakanta Sahoo‟, though the petitioner claims that
„Ramesh‟ is the nick name of Ramakanta. The petitioner claims
to have brought the above mistake, which is said to be
typographical in nature, to the notice of the authorities on
multiple occasions. Not a single such
letter/application/affidavit is enclosed to the writ application
nor the dates on which the same were submitted have been
stated. An affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate,
Rayagada on 08.10.2024 which is after the dispute arose, is
pressed into service. Perusal of the affidavit, copy of which has
been enclosed as Annexure-7, reveals that as per the Aadhar
Card and PAN Card of her husband, his name is „Ramakanta
Sahoo‟ but both „Ramesh Chandra Sahoo‟ and „Ramakanta
Sahoo‟ refer to the same person. This affidavit, as already
stated, was sworn on 08.10.2024 for the purpose of being
Page 9 of 15
submitted before the concerned authorities as conclusive proof
of both names of her husband. There being no other proof of
submission of application by the petitioner in this regard or to
correct the name of her husband in the certificate, it is difficult
to accept the affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate.
Significantly, the original certificate bears an endorsement by
the Collector that it is renewed up to 19.06.2010. Said
endorsement was made on 23.06.2009. Thus, even on
23.06.2009 the same certificate was renewed containing the
name „Ramesh Chandra Sahoo‟. The petitioner‟s claim of
seeking correction of the name is not acceptable. Save and
except the affidavit no other material is placed to show that
Ramakanta Sahoo is also known by the name Ramesh Chandra
Sahoo. Once it is held that the name was wrongly portrayed, it
would obviously amount to misrepresentation, if not
suppression per se, but then, as argued by learned State
Counsel, the petitioner had deliberately done so keeping in view
the bar in the Rules for near relatives of Department of Posts
to be appointed as agents. Her husband was working as GDS
(Packer). In the judgment cited by Mr. Pandey it has been held
Page 10 of 15
that GDS does not hold a civil post under the Union. On facts,
this Court finds the cited case inapplicable to the present case
for the reason that whether the person is a regular employee or
not cannot have any bearing as the very purpose of inserting
such clause is obviously to ensure complete transparency and
fairness and to place all the agents on a level playing field. A
person already employed, even if temporarily can still be in a
position to influence the investors at the behest of his or her
relatives, who is appointed as an agent. Rule 3(h) of the
Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and
Engagement) Rules, 2020 defines “Members of the family” and
is reproduced herein below:
“(h) “Members of the family in relation to a Gramin Dak
Sevak includes
(i) the wife, child or step child of such Sevak, whether
residing with him or not, and in relation to a Sevak who
is a woman, the husband residing with her and
dependent on her; and
(ii) any other person related, whether by blood or by
marriage to such Sevak or to such Sevaks’ wife or
husband and wholly dependent on such Sevak, but
does not, include a wife or husband legally separated
from such Sevak or a child or step child who is no longer
in any way dependent upon such Sevak or of whose
custody the Sevak has been deprived by any law; only
widow and dependent Daughter-in law”
Page 11 of 15
9. Rule-3.A(v) provides that a Sevak shall be outside the
Civil Service of the Union and Rule 3.A(vi) provides that a Sevak
shall not claim to be at par with the Central Government
employees. Coming to MPKBY Rules, the provision relating to
eligibility provides that near relatives of the employees of
Department of Posts and National Savings Institute are not
eligible for appointment as agents or renewal of their existing
agency under MPKBY. On a conjoint reading of aforequoted
Rules, it is evident that GDS, though not holding a Civil post,
yet is to be treated as an employee of the Department as long
as his engagement as such subsists. Reference in this regard
may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of UPSC v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup, (2008) 11 SCC 10, wherein it
was observed as follows:
“14. The term “employee” is not defined in the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, nor is it defined in the
advertisement of upsc. The ordinary meaning of
“employee” is any person employed on salary or wage
by an employer. When there is a contract of
employment, the person employed is the employee and
the person employing is the employer. In the absence of
any restrictive definition, the word “employee” would
include both permanent or temporary, regular or short
term, contractual or ad hoc. Therefore, all persons
employed by MCD, whether permanent or contractual
will be “employees of MCD.” [ Emphasis added]Page 12 of 15
10. The word „employee‟ used in the MPKBY Rules does
not qualify the same as permanent employee only. According to
the considered view of this Court, the term is of wide import
and amplitude to include all persons engaged by the
Department for its work for the time being. The argument
advanced by Mr. Pandey to the contrary is therefore, not
tenable.
11. In view of the above finding, the other finding that
there is no proof of the petitioner having sought correction of
the name of her husband in the certificate assumes great
significance and persuades this Court to hold that the same
amounts to deliberate suppression of facts.
12. Under such circumstances, it would be treated as an
act of fraud and in view of the oft-repeated proposition that
„fraud and justice never dwell together‟, she would be not
entitled to any relief whatsoever. The affidavit sworn by her
before the Executive Magistrate belatedly is nothing but a self-
serving document that cannot undo the wrong committed for as
long as 23 years.
Page 13 of 15
13. Another aspect that needs consideration is that the
petitioner‟s application for renewal, which was responded to by
the opposite party No.4 by letter dated 26.06.2023 was for the
previous period i.e. 27.06.2023 to 26.06.2024. This period
appears to have been renewed. There is no material to show
that any application for renewal was submitted 45 days prior to
the date of expiry i.e., 26.06.2024. The petitioner appears to
have applied on 05.09.2024, by which time the agency had
already lapsed for non-renewal. By letter dated 27.09.2024, the
ADM simply informed that the question of renewal of her
agency would be considered upon receipt of clarification from
the Finance Department. Under such circumstances, if the
Finance Department would have clarified in her favour, then
the agency may have been deemed to be renewed from
27.06.2024. However, the Finance Department, taking note of
the suppression of facts, decided otherwise.
14. From what has been narrated hereinabove, the
Finance Department cannot be faulted with for taking the
decision not to accept the application for renewal of the
petitioner.
Page 14 of 15
15. Another aspect that needs consideration of this
Court and that too with some concern, is that despite non-
renewal of the agency, the petitioner on her own admission has
held on to huge amount of money i.e., to the tune of
Rs.32,90,000 of the depositors without depositing the same in
the Department. The petitioner claims to have been prevented
in this regard by the Department, which is hardly believable.
16. From a conspectus of the analysis of facts, law and
discussion made, this Court finds no reason to be persuaded to
interfere with the impugned order of the Collector in not
renewing the agency of the petitioner.
17. In the result, the writ application fails and is
therefore, dismissed.
……………………………
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 5th April, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication Page 15 of 15
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 05-Apr-2025 14:54:05
[ad_1]
Source link