The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. NO. 2629 OF 2024 Arising out of judgment dated 16.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021. State of Odisha & Another ……. -Versus- Bijaya Kishore Nath & Others Advocates appeared in this case: …. …. Appellants Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, Addl. Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Bhabani Sankar Tripathy-1, Sr. Advocate with M/s A. Tripathy & A. Sahoo, Advocates CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decided on: 08.07.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J. The State is in appeal grieving against a learned Single Judge’s order dated 16.08.2024 whereby respondent-employees’ WP(C) No.24545 of 2021 having been favoured, relief as sought for is accorded. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Panda, appearing for the appellant-State vehemently argues that the relief of the kind could Page 1 of 5 not have been granted by the learned Single Judge in view of the law declared in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3),1. He also contends that learned Judge’s reliance on 2013 Resolution dated 17.09.2013 is unjustified. 3. Learned counsel representing the employees, per contra, contends that the ratio of Umadevi supra has to remain miles away from the case of his clients inasmuch as rights have accrued to them under the State Policy as promulgated under 2013 Resolution, and that promissory estoppel also comes to the rescue of respondents. He further contends that the case of respondents is not one of back door entry, inasmuch as there was selection process duly undertaken as per the extant policy guidelines. He also presses into service Apex Court decision in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam,2 to the effect that the appellants being the Government/functionaries of the Government have to conduct themselves as a Model Employer. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission of learned counsel representing respondent-employees and therefore decline indulgence in the matter, by giving our reasons as well: 4.1. It is not much in dispute that the respondents did not gain entry to the service through the back doors. They were subjected to some level of selection process. Their’s is a contractual appointment is apparent from the records. The Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013 provides immense support to the case of respondent-employees, inasmuch as all