The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 7906 of 2021 ..... Nrusingha Charan Behera Petitioner Mr. S. Mohanty-1, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 3) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 19.09.2025 Order No.03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.Heard Mr. S. Mohanty-1, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why- i. issue a writ/writs in the nature of Certiorari to quash the letter No.2470 dtd.20.10.2020 as under Annexure-12. ii. issue a writ/ writs in the nature of mandamus directing the O.P. No.1 to pay the dues in view of admission before this Page 1 of 10 Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 15296 of 2005 as under Annexure-9 (series). iii. issue a writ/ writs in the nature of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties more particularly Opp. Party No.1 to pay the arrear salary (incremental) for the period 01.07.90 to 31.12.98, Unpaid salary from July, 1999 to May, 2000 along with interest @18% from the date of entitlement till date of actual payment shown in Paragraph-12 to the writ petition from 15.05.2001 till date of actual payment immediately within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; iv. if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or insufficient cause make the said rule absolute. And further be pleased to pass such other order /orders as may be deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3, basing on the VRS scheme floated by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-1, Petitioner submitted his application to take voluntary retirement from his services. The scheme so floated by the Govt. was also accepted by the authorities of Kalinga Weavers Co-operative Spinning Mill Ltd. vide notice dtd.31.08.2000 under Annexure-2.
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15088 of 2020. But without taking a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of arrear salary for the aforesaid period, while declining to extend the benefit, Petitioner was directed to move either Opp. Party No. 2 or Opp. Party No. 3 to get the benefit. 4.8. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3, he was allowed to take voluntary retirement basing on the V.R. scheme floated by Opp. Party No. 1, it is Opp. Party No. 1 who is required to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim. Page 5 of 10 4.9. It is also contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the arrear salary for the aforesaid period also flows from the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dtd.25.08.2001 under Annexure-2 so attended by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 along with other authorities of the State. It is accordingly contended that rejection of the Petitioner’s claim by Opp. Party No. 1, with the liberty granted therein is not sustainable in the eye of law and Opp. Party No. 1 be directed to release the arrear salary as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner for the period from 01.07.1990 to 31.12.1998. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel and Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 on the other hand made their submissions basing on the stand taken in their respective counter affidavits. 5.1. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3, Petitioner made his application to take voluntary retirement in terms of the scheme floated by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-1. As per the said scheme and with due quantification of the amount as due to the employees of the five different Spinning Mills of the State who have availed VRS, Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dtd.21.03.2017 in Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 354-355 of 2009 Page 6 of 10 and batch of appeals at Rs.807.86 lakhs, the due as due and admissible has already been released by the State-Opp. Party No. 1. Opp. Party No. 1 accordingly is not liable to pay any further sum as claimed by the Petitioner. It is also contended that claim made by the Petitioner towards arrear salary is the period prior to floating of the scheme under Annexure-1. Therefore, Opp. Party No. 1 cannot be held liable to pay the same. 5.2. It is contended that in terms of the scheme so floated by Opp. Party No. 1 and the amount due to the employees of five different Spinning Mills of the State including Opp. Party No. 3 who availed VRS, was quantified by the Apex Court at Rs.807.86 lakhs. Pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court, employees of all the aforesaid five different Spinning Mills of the State, who took voluntary retirement in terms of the scheme, have already been paid with the benefit as due and admissible to them. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that in view of the nature of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex court in Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 354-355 of 2009 and batch of appeals under Annexure-9, Opp. Party No. 1 is no more liable to pay any amount to the Petitioner. It is also contended that claim of the Petitioner in the present writ petition relates to the arrear salary for the period from 01.07.1990 to Page 7 of 10 31.12.1998, which is admittedly prior to floating of the scheme in the year 2001. 5.4. It is further contended that since in terms of the scheme and with due quantification of the claim of the employees by the Hon’ble Apex Court who took the benefit of voluntary retirement in terms of the scheme have been paid, Opp. Party No. 1 is not liable to pay any further sum as claimed. It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15088 of 2020, has been rightly rejected with the liberty granted in favour of the Petitioner. 6. Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 also made his submission in the light of the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel. It is contended that since Petitioner made his application to take voluntary retirement in terms of the scheme floated by Opp. Party No. 1 and the benefit as due to the employees of five different Spinning Mills of the State so quantified by the Apex Court in its order dtd.21.03.2017 in Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 354-355 of 2009 and batch has already been released in favour of the Petitioner and similarly situated employees working in the Mill, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any further benefit. It is also contended that as the Page 8 of 10 five Spinning Mills of the State including Opp. Party No. 3- Spinning Mill became sick and could not pay the dues to its employees, the scheme under Annexure-1 was floated by Opp. Party NO. 1. As per the Scheme, all the entitlement including arrear salary if any, was calculated and quantified by the Hon’ble Apex Court at Rs.807.86 lakhs. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner is not liable to get any further sum from Opp. Party No. 3. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3, pursuant to the scheme floated by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-1, Petitioner made his application to get the benefit of voluntary retirement. 7.1. As found, such application made by the Petitioner was not only accepted but also Petitioner was relieved from his services w.e.f. 15.05.2001 vide letter issued under Annexure-4. Though after allowing the Petitioner to take such voluntary retirement w.e.f.15.05.2001, various communications were made in between the Opp. Parties at different point of time with passing of different orders by this Court, but it is found that challenging the orders passed by this Court, State of Odisha moved the Hon’ble Apex Page 9 of 10 Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 354-355 of 2009 along with batch of appeals. 7.2. However, Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dtd.21.03.2017 under Annexure-9 while disposing Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 354- 355 of 2009, quantified the dues payable to such employees of five Spinning Mills of the State who took voluntary retirement in terms of the scheme floated by Opp. Party No. 1 at Rs.807.86 lakhs. 7.3. Since it is not disputed that the amount so quantified by the Hon’ble Apex Court has already been disbursed of in favour of the employees of Opp. Party No. 3, who took voluntary retirement including the Petitioner, it is the view of this Court that Opp. Party No. 1 is not liable to pay any further sum to the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds that no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.20.10.2020 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-12. While not interfering with the said order, this
Arguments
4.1. It is contended that in terms of the scheme so floated and after acceptance of the application submitted by the Petitioner to take voluntary retirement, the same when was accepted by the Govt., Page 2 of 10 Petitioner vide letter dtd.15.05.2001 under Annexure-4 was relieved from his duties w.e.f. the said date. 4.2. However, on the face of such acceptance of the VRS application of the Petitioner and similarly situated employees working in the Spinning Mill, when benefits as per the scheme were not released, Opp. Party No. 3 vide letter dtd.05.04.2002 under Annexure-5 made a request to Opp. Party No. 2 to clear the statutory and unpaid dues of such VRS employees of the Mill at an early date to avoid further legal complicacy. Such request made by the Mill was forwarded by Opp. Party No. 2 to Opp. Party No. 1 vide letter dtd.11.04.2002 under Annexure-6. 4.3. It is contended that subsequently vide letter dtd.10.07.2003 of Opp. Party No. 1, Opp. Party No. 3 was requested to keep ready various service records of all 1249 nos. of employees working in the Mill for necessary verification. 4.4. It is contended that on the face of such communications made in between the Opp. Parties, when the retiral dues in terms of the scheme, was not released in favour of the Petitioner and similarly situated employees working in different Spinning Mills of the State, the matter was carried to this Court and subsequently to the Hon’ble Apex Court by the State in Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 354- Page 3 of 10 355 of 2009 and batch of appeals. Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dtd.21.03.2017 under Annexure-9 series, directed the State to release 50% of the proceeds of assets of the sick mills in question within a period of two (2) months and while directing so, the total dues of the employees availing the benefit of voluntary retirement in terms of the scheme in all the five Spinning Mills of the State was calculated at 807.86 lakhs. 4.5. It is also contended that prior to disposal of the matter by the Apex Court, Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 11333 of 2003, seeking a direction on the Opp. Parties to release the 2nd instalments of the VRS benefits. This Court vide order dtd.29.04.2004 under Annexure-10, directed the Opp. Parties therein to pay the balance dues of the Petitioner within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. 4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the face of such orders passed by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court when arrear salary of the Petitioner for the period from 01.07.1990 to 31.12.1998 was not released, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 15088 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.04.09.2020 when directed Opp. Party No. 1 herein to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, the same was Page 4 of 10 rejected vide the impugned order dtd.20.10.2020 under Annexure- 12. While rejecting such claim of the Petitioner, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to raise his claim before his employer i.e. Opp. Party No. 3 or before the Administrative Department i.e. Opp. Party No. 2. 4.7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since in terms of the scheme floated by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 and after receipt of the payment in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 354-355 of 2009 and batch of Civil Appeals, arrear salary of the Petitioner for the period from 01.07.1990 to 31.12.998 was never released, he
Decision
Court dispose of the writ petition. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:06:49 Page 10 of 10