The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21572 of 2025 Topi Chandra Bhoi …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Mahapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Another …. Opp. Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Decision
ORDER 23.09.2025 Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: - “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue RULE NISI in the nature of appropriate writ or any other writ (s) as deem fit and proper calling upon the 0pp. Parties to show cause, as to why the prayer made hereunder be not allowed, and if no/insufficient cause, the said rule be made absolute by issuing writ(s) in the nature of; To quash/ set aside the order No.5911, dated 07.09.2023 passed by the O.P. No.2 at Annexure- 10. AND // 2 // to grant The 0pp. Parties be directed the compensation 4 crores with all pensionary benefits and cost of the damages for causing illegality to the petitioner as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court as referred in his representation at Annexure-7 within a stipulated period, failing which interest on the delayed payment @ 18% to be paid to the petitioner in causing delay in deciding in the case of the petitioner in the interest of justice. AND, Further be pleased to pass such other writ (s)/ order (s) as may deem just and proper.” 4. It is contended that pursuant to the selection process initiated wayback in the year 1986, petitioner though was found eligible and was selected as reflected in letter dated 30.09.1986 under Annexure- 2, but at no point of time, petitioner was provided with the order of appointment in terms of such selection. It is also contended that petitioner when was not provided with any such appointment, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27073 of 2019 under Annexure-3 and this Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 under Annexure-3, while disposing the Writ Petition, directed O.P. No.1 to consider petitioner’s grievance. 4.1. However, petitioner’s claim when was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27606 of 2022 seeking grant of compensation. Basing on the order passed by this Court, petitioner made a representation on 22.12.2022 under Annexure-7. However, when Page 2 of 7 // 3 // petitioner’s claim was not considered, petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in CONTC No.2027 of 2023 and thereafter CONTC No.4203 of 2024. 4.2. However, in the meantime vide order dated 07.09.2023, claim of the petitioner to provide compensation to the tune of Rs.4 crore along with all pensionary benefits was rejected by O.P. No.2. 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner was selected vide letter dated 30.09.1986 and because of the inaction of the Opp. Parties, he could not get the benefit of appointment, petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of compensation so claimed along with all pension and pensionary benefits. But without proper appreciation, such claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2023 under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on the available materials contended that even though petitioner as contended was selected in the year 1986 vide Annexure-2, but petitioner never took any step to get the benefit of appointment till for the first time he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27073 of 2019. This Court vide order dated Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 13.01.2020 though directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim, but no such document is in the record showing compliance of order dated 13.01.2020. 5.1. Petitioner thereafter when approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27606 of 2022 inter alia seeking grant of compensation challenging the in-action of the Opp. Parties in not providing him appointment, this Court vide order dated 21.11.2022 under Annexure-6 though permitted the petitioner to move a representation and a representation was made on 22.12.2022 under Annexure-7, claiming compensation of Rs.4 crores with all pensionary benefits, but the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2023 under Annexure-10. 5.2. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since on the face of his selection in the year 1986, petitioner never took any step till he approached this Court in the year 2019, because of such delayed approach on the part of the petitioner, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any compensation as prayed for and it has been rightly rejected. It is also contended that petitioner has not filed any document showing that in terms of Annexure-1, petitioner was allowed to undergo the training and thereafter was provided with the order of appointment. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner as found from letter dated 30.09.1986 under Annexure-2 was selected as Para Medical Worker to undergo the training for a period of 6 (six) months starting from 15.10.1986. No document has been enclosed to the Writ Petition showing inter alia that in terms of such letter issued on 30.09.1986, petitioner was allowed to undergo the training. 6.1. As further found, petitioner on the face of such letter issued on 30.09.1986 and for the first time approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27073 of 2019 seeking compliance of the request made by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India in its letter dated 19.11.2018. This Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 though directed O.P. No.1 to consider petitioner’s claim, but nothing has been indicated about its compliance. 6.2. As found, petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27606 of 2022 claiming grant of compensation for such in-action on the part of the Opp. Parties in not providing him appointment. This Court vide order dated 21.11.2022 under Annexure-6, permitted the petitioner to move an application before O.P. No.1. In terms of the said order, petitioner made a representation on 22.12.2022 Page 5 of 7 // 6 // under Annexure-7 claiming compensation of Rs.4 Crores with all pensionary benefits. As found, the same was considered and rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2023 under Annexure-10. 6.3. Since, petitioner on the face of the letter issued on 30.09.1986 under Annexure-2, has not provided any document showing that he was allowed to undergo the training in terms of the said order, it is the view of this Court that in absence of any such certificate showing acquisition of the training, no order of appointment could have been issued in favour of the petitioner. 6.4. Not only that, inaction with regard to not providing appointment in respect of a selection made in the year 1986, was raised for the first time by the petitioner before this Court in the year 2019 with filing of W.P.(C) No.27073 of 2019. No document has also been enclosed showing compliance of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.27073 of 2019. Thereafter, petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27606 of 2022 claiming compensation which has now been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.07.09.2023. 6.5. In view of such delayed approach made by the petitioner to get the benefit of any nature, it is the Page 6 of 7 // 7 // view of this Court petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any benefit, lest the compensation as claimed. 6.6. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dated 07.09.2023 so passed by O.P. No.1 under Annexure- 10. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:42:38 Page 7 of 7