Baikunthanath Jujharsingh v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 39(d)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No.1 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a…
Judgment
Petitioner Mr. U.K. Sahoo, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 05.04.2025 Order No. 01
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned State Counsel for the Opposite Parties. 3 Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: -
A. Equal Pay for Equal Work (Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India): The petitioner discharged duties identical to those of regular Assistant Teachers but was denied corresponding pay and increments. This discriminatory constitutional mandate under Article 39(d) and established judicial precedents, including the decisions in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148. treatment violates B. Breach of Judicial Precedents: The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P. (C) No. 31679/2011 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 13627/2021 recognized the petitioner's regularization and entitlement to career and terminal benefits but left the issue of differential arrears unresolved. This fresh cause of action arises due to the respondents' arbitrary denial of financial parity. C. Arbitrariness and Discrimination: The respondents' action in denying pay fixation and differential arrears lacks justification, is arbitrary, and amounts to discriminatory treatment, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Page 1 of 2. D. Judicial Mandate on Notional Regularization: While notional regularization impacts seniority, it cannot be extended to deny financial benefits for work performed. The denial of pay parity contravenes the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases, such as Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648. E. Discrimination and Apathetic Attitude: repeated resolutions government's The delayed implementation demonstrate an apathetic attitude towards Gana Sikshyaks, who have rendered continuous service since their engagement as Education Volunteers. This delay and discrimination violate their right to fair and equal treatment in employment. F. Entitlement to Pay Scale and Benefits: The petitioner should have been entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay Rs. 2200/- as stipulated by Office Order No. 738 and Notification No. 278/SME. His duties as an Assistant.
However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No.1 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period three (3) weeks hence.
It is observed that if such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, Opp. Party No.1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by the Opp. Party No.1 be communicated to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is Signature Not Verified disposed of. Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: eMudhra. App. Views. PartialControls. SigningModeTab. Signi ngTabViewModel Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:32:49 Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 2 of 2.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.