The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 22007 of 2025 ..... Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra Petitioner Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate State of Odisha &Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 12.08.2025 Order No.01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.Heard Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and issue notice to the Opposite Parties and after hearing
Legal Reasoning
to the parties this Hon’ble Court may please to set aside the order under Annexure-1 & 2 holding that such orders are completely illegal, arbitrary & unlawful on the ground that the Opp. Party No.1 & 2 are not the competent authority & having no jurisdiction to pass such order under Annexure-1 & 2 in violation to the Govt. resolution dtd.31.01.2018 which is notified under Odisha Gazette at Annexure-8, Guideline dtd.01.02.2018 under Annexure-9, X-Cadre posts created vide dtd.28.08.2018 under Annexure-12, Board of Page 1 of 6. Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack order under vide file No. 4336, dtd.14.11.2018 under Annexure-13. And such orders also violate the Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 16, and 21 of the constitution of India, 1950. Further this Hon’ble Court may quash such action(s) initiated or taken against the petitioner in the meantime pursuant to order under Annexure-1, 2 or show cause notice dtd. 11.07.2025 under Annexure-17. And or may pass any such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court would be deem fit and proper. And for which kind act the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that basing on the Resolution issued on 31.01.2018 under Annexure-8, Petitioner while continuing as a Peskar in the office of Tahasildar, Athagarh was relieved w.e.f.03.03.2018 vide order under Annexure- 10 and with a further direction to report before Collector, Cuttack. 4.1. It is contended that subsequently vide office order dtd.09.04.2018 so issued by the Collector, Cuttack under Annexure- 11, while being deployed to Athagarh Tahasil, he was treated as a Revenue Inspector. Not only that vide order dtd.14.06.2025 under Annexure-14 while being redeployed to Tangi-Choudwar Tahasil, Petitioner’s designation was indicated as Revenue Inspector. But in the impugned office order dtd.23.06.2025, while being relieved from duty and with a direction to join in the office of Settlement Officer, Cuttack, his designation was wrongly reflected as Peskar. 4.2. Challenging such order dtd.23.06.2025 Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 17950 of 2025. This Court when Page 2 of 6. directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim vide order dtd.04.07.2025, the same was rejected vide order dtd.02.08.2025 under Annexure-2.
Legal Reasoning
4.3. In course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner has no objection to join in terms of office order dtd.23.06.2025 so issued under Annexure-1. However, he having continued as against the post of R.I. on his deployment to the office of Collector, Cuttack, he could not have been posted to the Settlement Office, Cuttack vide the impugned order dt.23.06.2025 with his designation as Peskar in place of R.I.. It is accordingly contended that designation of the Petitioner so reflected in office order dtd.23.06.2025 as Peskar, needs correction and Petitioner be designated as R.I.. But the said fact was not properly appreciated while rejecting his claim vide order dtd.02.08.2025 under Annexure- 2. 5. Basing on the instruction learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that Petitioner while continuing in the Settlement Organization, he was holding the post of Peskar. However, pursuant to Resolution dtd.31.01.2018 under Annexure-8, when Petitioner was deployed to the Settlement & Consolidation Organization and for his working under the administrative control of the Collector, Cuttack for Hi-Tech survey work, he was posted to the Administration Controller of Collector, Cuttack vide order dtd.03.03.2018. After his joining in the establishment of Collector, Cuttack and while deploying him to work at Athagarh Tahasil for such Hi-Tech survey, his designation was taken as Revenue Inspector. Not only that while redeploying to the Petitioner to the Tangi-Choudwar Tahasil vide order dtd.14.06.2025, he was treated as a Revenue Inspector. But since in office order dtd.23.06.2025 Page 3 of 6. Petitioner was redeployed to the Settlement Office, Cuttack, his designation was taken as Peskar, which was his designation by the time he was deployed to the office of Collector vide order dtd.03.03.2018 under Annexure-10. 5.1. It is also contended that in the Resolution issued on 31.01.2018 under Annexure-8, it was clearly indicated that existing Inspector, Peskar and Draftsman shall be deployed to work as Revenue Inspector and in terms of the stipulation contained in the Resolution, Petitioner’s designation though was Peskar, but he was taken as Revenue Inspector while issuing office order dtd.09.04.2018 under Annexure-11 and 14.06.2025 under Annexure-14. 5.2. Since Petitioner has now been brought back to his original place of posting to the office of Settlement Officer, Cuttack, he has been designated as Peskar. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the designation of the Petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as a Peskar in the office of Tahasildar, Athagarh in terms of the Resolution issued on 31.01.2018 under Annexure-8 and subsequent letter issued by the Department on 01.02.2018 under Annexure-9, Petitioner was relieved from his assignment as Peskar w.e.f.03.03.2018 and he was directed to join in the office of Collector, Cuttack to carry out Hi-Tech survey work in Cuttack district. 6.1. In terms of that Resolution issued on 31.01.2018 and the stipulation contained therein that existing Inspector, Peskar and Draftsman shall be deployed to work as Revenue Inspector, Collector, Cuttack while issuing office order dtd.09.04.2018 under Page 4 of 6. Annexure-11 designated the Petitioner as a Revenue Inspector. Similar order was also passed while redeploying the Petitioner to Tangi-Choudwar Tahasil vide office order dtd.14.06.2025 under Annexure-14. But now since the Petitioner has been brought back to his original place of posting i.e. Settlement Office, Cuttack, he has been designated as Peskar. 6.2. As found from the record, Petitioner in terms of Resolution dtd.31.01.2018 when was deployed to carry out the Hi-Tech survey work in the district of Cuttack, he was designated as a Revenue Inspector. Since as per the said Resolution Petitioner was designated as a Revenue Inspector, as per the considered view of this Court, the same confers no rightly on him to be treated as a Revenue Inspector for all purposes. 6.3. It is also found from the record that while being deployed to carry out the Hi-Tech Survey work, Petitioner was continuing as a Peskar and he was deployed as such vide order dtd.03.03.2018. Because of the stipulation contained in the Resolution dtd.31.01.2018, Collector, Cuttack designated him as a Revenue Inspector vide order dtd.09.04.2018 and subsequent order passed on 14.06.2025 under Annexure-11 & 14 respectively. 6.4. Since Petitioner was designated as a Revenue Inspector in terms of the Resolution dtd.31.01.2018 under Annexure-8 for the purpose of carrying out Hi-Tech Survey work in Cuttack district, Petitioner’s claim that he be treated as a Revenue Inspector for all purposes, as per the considered view of this Court is not at all entertainable. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with regard to the designation given to the Petitioner in order dtd.23.06.2025 under Annexure-1, further upheld vide order dtd.02.08.2025 under Page 5 of 6. Annexure-2. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order so issued under Annexure-1 & 2 and dismiss the writ petition. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Aug-2025 10:38:16 Page 6 of 6.