The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 05. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19251 of 2024 Chhayakanta Parida and others ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Kunal Kumar Swain State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. D.Lenka, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 18.07.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the pleadings from both sides as well as the documents relied upon either side in support of their contention. 3. The present writ application has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7 to the writ application. The Petitioner has also prayed for a further direction to the Opposite Parties to grant revise scale of pay as per ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as well as the arrears as is due and admissible on the basis of such pay revision, keeping in view the fact that the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 has already been extended in favour of JC class- IV employees of Settlement and Consolidation wings of the Page 1 of 7. Directorate of Land Records, survey and consolidation as per the government decision dated 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2 to the writ application. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset contended that the petitioners were initially engaged as a job contract employees, thereafter while discharging their duties in the different survey and settlement, State of Odisha, a decision was taken by the Govt. of Odisha on 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2 to the writ application. Further, referring to the aforesaid letter dated 02.08.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Govt. of Odisha has decided to extend the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in favour of the JC, Class-IV employees of Settlement and Consolidation Organisation as per the scale mentioned in the said letter. It has also been decided that the decision as per department letter No.27262/R dated 17.05.1999 would also be applicable to the JC Khalasis working under the Survey and Map Publication, Odisha Cuttack w.e.f. 01.01.1996. On perusal, the letter under Annexure-2 reveals that it was issued with the concurrence with the Finance Department vide U.O.R. No.243 dated 22.05.2006. Accordingly, proposals were invited from the Director, Land Records & Survey, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the issue involved in the present application was also the subject matter of the dispute in an identical writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.26267 of 2021 (Bhimasen Sahoo and other vs. State of Odisha and others),wherein a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2021 under Annexure-5 to the writ application granted liberty to the petitioners in that writ application to approach the Page 2 of 7. Opposite Parties for consideration of their case within a stipulated period of time. After dismissal of the said writ application the petitioners approached the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 vide order No.37300 dated 03.11.2022 under Annexure-6 to the present writ application, after considering the grievance of the petitioners who stand in a similar footing in present petitioners, were pleased to decide the pay fixed for Job Contract Class-IV employees of Settlement and Consolidation Organisation under ORSP Rules, 2008 i.e. Rs.6340/-vide letter dated 28.10.2010 of R & D.M. Department would also be applicable to the petitioners of Survey & Map Publication, Odisha Cuttack w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Accordingly, order dated 17.09.2021 passed in the abovenoted writ application was complied with. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission leaned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners are working in the office of the Survey Settlement & Map Publication they are also covered under the letter dated 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2 and that unless the petitioners are extended with the benefits as has been given in the case of Bhimasen Sahoo (supra) they shall be seriously prejudiced. On such grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present writ application be allowed and necessary direction to be given to the Opposite party No.1 to extend the benefits under letter dated 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2 in favour of the petitioners, keeping in view the fact that such benefits have also been extended in favour of the Bhimasen Sahoo and others vs. State of Odisha and others as has been discussed hereinabove. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand referred to the counter affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Party No.4. Learned Page 3 of 7. Additional Government Advocate at the outset objected to the prayer made in the present writ application on the ground that petitioners were not entitled to the benefits as claimed by the petitioners. Referring to Para-8 of the counter affidavit he contended, that since the petitioners were initially engage as a Khalasi in the Job Contract establishment on daily wage basis in the Office of Survey & Map Publication, Odisha, the petitioners do not come under the Job Contract employee category of the Consolidation & Settlement Organisation. As such their names have not been included in the district gradation list prepared by the Board of Revenue. He further submitted that the petitioners do not stand in a similar footing with the abovenamed Bhimasen Sahoo and other Job Contract employees working in the Settlement & Consolidation Organisation. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioners are not entitled to similar benefits of pay revision at par with JC employees working in Settlement & Consolidation Organisation. 8. Further, referring to the Para-9 of the counter affidavit learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioners have not rendered minimum ten years of service under the Administrative Control of the Department. He further submitted that the petitioners have not rendered any service after 2013 i.e. after closure of the fields survey work as per order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the R & D.M. Department, Govt. of Odisha. As such the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of pay revision in terms of letter dated 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2 to the writ application. 9. Similarly referring to the Para-12 of the counter affidavit learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the petitioners have availed the financial benefits by misrepresenting Page 4 of 7. their job description as job contract employee. On the contrary, it was argued that there is no such post of JC or anyone has ever been engaged as JC in the Office of the Opposite Party. In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the letter R & D.M. Department dated 17.11.2023 under Annexure-C/4. Finally, learned counsel for the State contended that, petitioners as workers were utilised for the purpose of Survey and Map Publication on daily wage basis. Therefore, they cannot be conferred with the status of the JC and as such they were not entitled to the benefit as has been claimed in the present application. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. On a careful analysis of the submissions made counsels appearing for the respective parties, further on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the pleadings of the respective parties, this Court observes that the issues that are required to be determined in the present writ application are as per follows- 1. Whether the petitioners were engaged in the job contract establishment of the Survey and Settlement wings of the Settlement & Consolidation Office of the Govt. of Odisha? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit in terms of the letter dated 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2 at par with the benefit extended in favour of one Bhimasen Sahu and others vide order dated 03.11.2022 under Annexure-6 to the writ application? 11. In reply to the first question this Court on a close scrutiny of the record observed that it is well established from the records that the petitioners were engaged in the job contract establishment of the Page 5 of 7. Survey & Settlement wings of the Settlement & Consolidation office of the Govt. of Odisha. The aforesaid fact is evident from the district wise gradation list of temporary Khalasi working in the office of the Survey & Map Publication, Odisha, Cuttack under Annexure-1 to the writ application. Such list reflects the present petitioners. Similarly, there are also other materials which indicates that the petitioners were engaged as Khalasi in the job contract establishment by the Opposite parties. It is also not disputed that the petitioners stand in a similar footing with the abovenamed Bhimasen Sahu and others who has been extended with the benefits as per the letter dated 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2 by virtue of order dated 03.11.2022 under Annexure-6. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the petitioners were working under the Job Contract establishment and in view of the pleadings of the counter affidavit which remains uncontroverted, the petitioners were working up to the year 2013. 12. On the second question, this Court referred to the letter under Annexure-2 dated 02.08.2006 of the R & D.M. Department, Govt. of Odisha. In view of the aforesaid letter job contract Khalasis who have been working in the Settlement and Consolidation Organisation have been extended with the benefit of the pay revision as per the ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Since this Court has earlier held that the petitioners were engaged in the job contract establishment therefore, the petitioners is squarely covered by the letter dated 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2 to the writ application. In fact on the basis of this letter dated 02.08.2006, similar benefits have been extended in favour of the one Bhimasen Sahu and others by the State-Opposite Parties vide order dated 03.11.2022 under Annexure- 6 to the writ application. This Court found no more distinction Page 6 of 7. between the present petitioners and the employee namely Bhimasen Sahu and others who have been extended such benefits under Annexure-6 to the writ application. Therefore, denial of such benefit to the petitioners both amounts to a gross discrimination and the same is prohibited under the principle under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to the pay revision under as per letter dated 02.08.2006 under Annexure-2. Hence the present application is allowed by directing the Opposite Parties to extend the benefit in favour of the petitioners as has been given in favour of the abovenamed Bhimasen Sahu and others vide letter dated 03.11.2022 under Annexure-6. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed to calculate the arrear dues of the petitioners and the same be paid within three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the impugned rejection order dated 11.07.2024 under Annexure-7 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ
Decision
Petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 7 of 7. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Jul-2025 11:58:04