The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28340 of 2023 Gokul Chandra Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. H.P. Rath, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 30.10.2025 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Written notes of submission along with citation filed in Court be kept in record. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dtd.27.06.2023 so passed by the Government - Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-19, wherein the claim of the Petitioner for his reengagement as against the regular post of Junior Soil Conservation Assistant has been rejected. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was appointed as Junior Soil Conservation Assistant vide order dtd.08.05.1992 under Annexure-1. While continuing as Junior Soil Conservation Assistant in // 2 // terms of the order issued under Annexure-1 and further order issued on 24.05.1995, Petitioner along with three others Junior Soil Conservation Assistant were deputed to work under the Project Manager, I.F.A.D., Assisted Orissa Tribal Development Project, Kashipur, Rayagada vide order dtd.23.08.1995 under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that while so continuing in terms of the order issued under Annexure-3, Petitioner along with others when were disengaged vide order dtd.21.09.2000 under Annexure-8 basing on the letter issued by the Government on 15.09.2000 under Annexure-6, Petitioner along with others so retrenched moved the Government seeking their re-appointment. 4.2. It is contended that vide letter dtd.05.10.2007 under Annexure-9, such claim of the Petitioner along with others though was recommended to the Government, but no action was taken in providing re- appointment to the Petitioner. However, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 05.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 under Annexure-13, similarly situated disengaged employee namely Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra was reinstated in his service against the re- designated post of Soil Conservation Extension Worker vide office order dtd.20.03.2023 under Annexure-13(c). Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that even though Petitioner is similarly situated as like the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016, but his claim was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.27.06.2023 under Annexure-19, pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10505 of 2023. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner along with others which includes the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 (Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra) were deputed vide order dtd.23.08.1995 under Annexure-3 while continuing as Junior Soil Conservation Assistant and all of them were terminated vide office order dtd.21.09.2000 under Annexure-8, basing on the letter issued by the Department on 15.09.2000, on the face of the order of re-instatement issued in favour of the Petitioner- Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 vide order dtd.20.03.2023 under Annexure-13(c), the ground on which Petitioners claim has been rejected vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner is entitled to get similar benefits with quashing of the impugned order of rejection.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that even though Petitioner and Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 were deputed Page 3 of 6 // 4 // vide order dtd.23.08.1995 under Annexure-3 while continuing as Junior Soil Conservation Assistant, but since Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2011 was earlier engaged vide office order dtd.02.04.1992 under Annexure-13 as Field Man Demonstrator on ad hoc basis and Petitioner was appointed vide order dtd.08.05.1992 under Annexure-1 taking into the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 made earlier to the Petitioner, basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016, he was reinstated vide order dtd.20.03.2023 under Annexure-13(c). 5.1. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner is not similarly situated as like Sri Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra in view of his earlier appointment as Field Man Demonstrator vide office order dtd.02.04.1992 under Annexure-13. Since Petitioner is appointed later on vide order dtd.08.05.1992, Petitioner cannot be treated as similar to the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which the Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner along with 3 other Junior Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Soil Conservation Assistant which includes Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 were deputed vide order dtd.23.08.1995 under Annexure-3 while continuing as Junior Soil Conservation Assistant. 6.1. It is found that Petitioner along with others were retrenched vide order dtd.21.09.2000 under Annexure- 8 basing on the letter issued by the Government- Opposite Party No.1 on 15.09.2020 under Annexure-6. However, taking into account the order passed by this Court on 05.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 under Annexure-13(b), Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 was reinstated against the re-designated post of Soil Conservation Extension Worker, vide
Decision
order dtd.20.03.2023 under Annexure-13(c). 6.2. Since Petitioner along with Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 were deputed vide a common order issued on 23.08.1995 under Annexure-3 while continuing as Soil Conservator Assistant and both of them along with others were terminated vide a common order issued on 21.09.2000 under Annexure-8 basing on the letter issued by the Government on 15.09.2000 under Annexure-6, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected while allowing the claim of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law. The ground taken by the Department that Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 since was Page 5 of 6 // 6 // appointed prior to the Petitioner vide order dtd.02.04.1992 as against the post of Field Man Demonstrator under Annexure-13 and accordingly is not similar to the Petitioner, is not acceptable as the Petitioner along with the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 were all deputed to work as Junior Soil Conservation Assistant while continuing under the department, vide a common order issued on 23.08.1995 under Annexure-3. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner’s claim has been illegally rejected even though he is similarly situated as like the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016. Therefore, on the ground of discrimination, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.27.06.2023 so passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-19. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to issue similar order of re- instatement as has been issued in favour of Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016 vide order dtd.20.03.2023 under Annexure-13(c) within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Subrat Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 18:45:28 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 6 of 6