The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3644 of 2023 Arbind Kumar Singh State of Odisha & Ors. …. -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 15.10.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties pass the following orders/directions; I) To quash the Order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-12; II) To declare the conditions imposed under Clause-4 (1) & the Government Resolution dated 19.07.2006 under Annexure-6 as illegal and arbitrary; (ii) of III) To direct the Opp. Parties to release the back wages for his disengagement period i.e. from 12.03.2002 to // 2 // 07.12.2006 with all consequential benefits as has been given to one "Bijaya Kumar Pradhan" within a time framed by this Hon’ble Court; And pass such other further order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner was appointed as a Work Sarkar in the work-charged establishment vide office order dtd.06.03.1997 under Annexure-1 in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. 4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner was appointed under the provisions of OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, but he was wrongly declared as a surplus and was terminated vide order dtd.10.03.2002 under Annexure-4. However, subsequently in terms of the Resolution issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 on 19.07.2006 under Annexure-6, Petitioner was re-engaged vide order dtd.08.12.2006 under Annexure-8. 4.2. It is also contended that Petitioner when was declared as a surplus and face with termination, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.594(C) of 2002 and the Tribunal protected the interest of the Petitioner with passing of an interim order in his favour on 26.02.2002. Page 2 of 8 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that Petitioner was illegally retrenched from his services even though he was appointed on compassionate basis and on the face of the interim passed by the Tribunal on 26.02.2002 in O.A. No.594(C) / 2002, was retrenched vide order dtd.10.03.2002 under Annexure-4 w.e.f. 11.03.2002 and he was suo-moto reinstated vide order dtd.08.12.2006 under Annexure-8, Petitioner raised his claim to get the benefit of salary for the period he remained out of employment because of such illegal termination for the period from 12.03.2002 to 07.12.2006. 4.4. It is contended that Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of salary for the aforesaid period when was not considered, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2640 (C) of 2008. The said Original Application on
Decision
being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order dtd.27.04.2022 in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2640 of 2008 with a direction on Opposite Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner’s claim. However, vide the impugned order dtd.07.11.2022 under Annexure-12, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that Petitioner’s since never discharged his duty for the period from 12.03.2002 to 07.12.2006, he is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of salary. 4.5. It is however contended that similarly situated persons being protected by the Tribunal, were extended Page 3 of 8 // 4 // with similar benefit as has been rejected in the case of the Petitioner. 4.6. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of salary for the period he remained out of employment from 12.03.2002 to 07.12.2006 and rejection of the claim so made vide the impugned order dtd.07.11.2022 under Annexure-12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that Petitioner since has not worked for the period in question, he is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit. The stand taken by the Petitioner that similar claim of one Sri Bijay Kumar Pradhan, was allowed, because of the fact that Sri Bijay Kumar Pradhan was an interim passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.600(C) of 2002. But there is no such interim order passed in the case of the Petitioner and thereby Petitioner is not similarly situated as like Sri Bijay Kumar Pradhan. The stand taken in Para-18 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “18. That in reply to the averments made in Para-19 and Para-20 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, from service w.e.f. the petitioner was retrenched 11.03.2002 being declared surplus while juniors to him named as Mamata Das (CSL-115) and Sri Abhaya Kumar Das (CSL-116) retained in service, it is submitted that the circumstances under which Mamata Das, Worksarkar was allowed to continue has already been narrated in Page 4 of 8 // 5 // the preceding paragraph. So far as Sri Abhaya Kumar Das (CSL-116) is concerned, it is humbly submitted that he was appointed on Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme under work-charged establishment and joined as Worksarkar in Rengali Dam Division, Rengali vide Order No.8137 dated.09.05.2000 of the Chief Engineer & Basin Manager, Brahamani Basin, Samal on 12.05.2000 F.N. The retrenchment notice was issued to Abhaya Kumar Das (CSL-116) vide Office Order No.87, dated 05.03.2003 of the Executive Engineer, Rengali Dam Division, being declared surplus. Abhaya Kumar Das (CSL-116) field an OA bearing O.A. No 462/2003 before the Learned Tribunal. As per the order passed by the Learned Tribunal dated20.09.2005 in O.A No.462/2003, the Government of Odisha in Water Resources Department after careful consideration issued order to continue Abhaya Kumar Das (CSL-116) in Service as Worksarkar and to delete his name from the retrenchment notice dt.05.03.2003 in their Letter No.24409 dated.01.08.2006 and No.27839 dated 06.09.2006 and the Chief Engineer Letter & Basin Manager, No.12279/WE the retrenchment order of Abhaya Kumar Das(CSL-116), Worksarkar has been deleted vide office order No.37(W/C)2006-07 dtd.16.09.2006of the Executive Engineer, Rengali Dam Division, in view of the above, Abhaya Kumar Das (CSL-116) was allowed to continue in Work-Charged Establishment as Worksarkar under Rengali Dam Division under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after 1993. Left Basin, Samal According, dt.16.08.2006. appointed being Further it is humbly submitted that one Sri Bijay Kumar Pradhan (Applicant No.19 of Ο.Α No.600(C)/2002 was allowed by the Opp. Party No.3 vide office order No.18234 dated.21.12.2006 to continue in service as Operator, Grade-IV in work charged establishment at par with his juniors subject to the condition that (1) his continuance in the grade of Operator Grade-IV under Work-Charged Establishment will only be considered at par his juniors now continuing on the strength of stay order by the Hon’ble Court. If the stay order will be vacated and the juniors will be retrenched then he will also be retrenched. He should furnish an undertaking to that effect. (2) he shall deposit his retrenchment benefits such as compensation, gratuity and one month salary in lieu of one month notice already receipt before joining in the duty. Page 5 of 8 // 6 // It is further humbly submitted that factually in case of Sri Bijay Kumar Pradhan (Applicant No.19 of O.A No.600(C)/2002) and the present petitioner is separate from each other. The claim of the petitioner for payment of salary during period of discontinuance at par with Sri Bijay Kumar Pradhan is not maintainable at all.” 5.1. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner was initially appointed in work-charged establishment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide order dtd.06.03.1997 under Annexure-1. As found Petitioner when was declared as a surplus and steps were taken to terminate him, he approached the Tribunal by filing in O.A No.594 (C) of 2002. As found Petitioner was protected by the Tribunal with passing of an interim order on 26.02.2002. But on the face of such interim order passed, Petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 11.03.2012 vide order dtd.10.03.2002 under Annexure-4. Petitioner thereafter was suo-moto reinstated in his services vide order dtd.08.12.2006 under Annexure-8. 6.1. Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of salary for the period from 12.03.2002 to 07.12.2006 when was not considered, he approached the Tribunal in O.A No.2640(C) of 2008. This Court vide order dtd.27.04.2022 under Annexure-11 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, the same was Page 6 of 8 // 7 // rejected vide the impugned order dtd.07.11.2022 under Annexure-12. 6.2. Since Petitioner was appointed under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and on the face of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 26.02.2002 in O.A No.594(C) of 2002, he was terminated vide order dtd.10.03.2002 under Annexure-4 and was suo-moto reinstated vide order dtd.08.12.2006 under Annexure-8, it is the view of this Court that no fault lies with the Petitioner for not discharging his duty during the period 12.03.2002 to 08.12.2006. 6.3. Not only that since similar benefit has been extended in favour of one Sri Bijay Kumar Pradhan so admitted in the counter affidavit and Petitioner as like Sri Bijay Kumar Pradhan is also protected by an interim order, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit which has been illegally rejected vide the impugned order. 6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.07.11.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-12. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to pass an appropriate order directing for release of the salary of the Petitioner as due and admissible for the period from 12.03.2002 to 07.12.2006 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Page 7 of 8 // 8 // 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 16:25:09 Page 8 of 8