The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.40109 of 2023 W.P.(C) No.8505 of 2024 W.P.(C) No.26890 of 2024 W.P.(C) No.26964 of 2024 W.P.(C) No.26981 of 2024 & W.P.(C) No.22033 of 2025 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ------------- represented by SUPRATIVA, Secretary-Bikash Mohapatra [In W.P.(C) No.40109 of 2023] its Swosti Mahila Bikash Parisad, represented by its Secretary-Smt. Pratima Mohapatra [In W.P.(C) No.8505 of 2024] MTSSS (Mother Teresa Samaja Sebi its Sangathan), Secretary-Niranjan Naik [In W.P.(C) No.26890 of 2024] represented by Sanjog (Voluntary Organization), represented by its Director-Ambuja Kumar Puhan [In W.P.(C) No.26964 of 2024] ISWAR (Integrated Social Welfare & Research Centre), represented by its Secretary-Rabindra Chandra Behera [In W.P.(C) No.26981 of 2024] Page 1 of 12 Dayananda Maharshi Service Mission, represented by its Secretary- Sri Pradip Kumar Sahoo [In W.P.(C) No.22033 of 2025] -versus- …. Petitioners Union of India & Others (In all WPs) …. Opposite Parties Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioners - M/s.Abhilash Mishra & B.P. Panda, Advocates (in all WPs)
Legal Reasoning
For Opp. Parties - Mr.P.K. Parhi, DSGI Mr.B.S.Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr.D.Gochhayat, CGC, Mr.M.K. Pradhan, CGC [O.Ps.1 & 3 in all WPs] Mr. U.C. Behura, Addl. Government Advocate (O.Ps.2, 4 & 5 in all WPs) ------------ CORAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 11.11.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J. All these petitions have substantially similar fact matrix, notwithstanding little variations this side or that side. Essentially, dispute is with regard to claim for reimbursement of Page 2 of 12 monies by the petitioner-agencies. The claim is on the ground that petitioners have discharged certain functions under a Central Government Scheme, i.e., National Child Labour Project. These claims, essentially, the Jurisdictional District Collector has to process, keeping in view the policy parameters of the Scheme, State being the implementing agency. The Scheme has been funded by the Central Government. A bare perusal of the contents of the Scheme shows that it is intended to bring the children to the mainstream of education with the involvement of agencies like the petitioners. For that, formally contracts are concluded between the private agencies and the implementer, i.e., the Jurisdictional District Collector through whom the State mediately functions in implementing the said Scheme. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that under the contracts in question, the obligations having been discharged, the petitioners are entitled to payments, which they have specified in their claims; the Jurisdictional District Collector Page 3 of 12 has recommended substantially the claim of these agencies and there is no positive response from the Union Government to the same. Therefore, he submits that interference of the Writ Court is eminently warranted in the matters. 3. After service of notice, the Union Government has entered appearance through its Senior Panel Counsel and opposes the petitioners by filing the counter. The State is represented by learned AGA and it has chosen not to file any counter. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India vehemently opposes the petitions contending that: The petitions are time barred; even for instituting money suites, there is a specified limitation period of three years; although the Limitation Act, 1963 per se is not applicable, the Apex Court has taken the view that while adjudging the delay & laches, regard should be had to what has been specified as limitation period in the 1963 Act; even otherwise there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the Union of India; the claim under the Scheme has to be time Page 4 of 12 bound by its very nature; substantiation of the claim has also to be undertaken; the so called contracts, which the petitioners are alleged to have entered into with the State agencies, are themselves time barred and they trampled the timelines prescribed by the Central Government; therefore, no legally enforceable liability on the shoulders of Central Government. 4. Learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite parties, with equal vehemence, resists the petitions drawing attention of the Court to the parts of petition pleadings that arguably demonstrate petitioners’ claims being hopelessly time barred; under section 3 of the 1963 Act, a duty is cast on the Court to reject the time barred petitions, whether such a contention is taken up or not by the opposing parties; though the State has not filed its Counter it can show that petitions are either not maintainable or that they are time barred, District Collector’s letter dated 13.07.2023 does not revive a dead cause of action, the limitation runs once the cause accrues, even otherwise the said letter addressed to the Central Page 5 of 12 Government would not advance the case of petitioners in any way, when material particulars are militantly lacking. Lastly, he contends that the petitions involve disputed facts and therefore, the petitioners having alternate & equally efficacious remedy of suit, should be non-suited here. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petitions. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited interference in the matter as under and for the following reasons: 5.1. The Central Government Scheme, it is broadly admitted at the Bar, is not a Statutory Scheme as such, although some of the paragraphs therein loosely refer to laws relating to protection of children and advancement of their educational interest. Essentially, it is a Scheme promulgated in exercise of executive power availing to the Union of India under Article 73 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Page 6 of 12 Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 observed that the Executive Power of the Central Government/State is co-extensive with the legislative power. Where Schemes of the kind are kept in view in catering to the educational needs of the inter alia children, it cannot be argued that its provisions are not judiciable. That is how Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur judgment is structured. Where parties envisaged under the Scheme undertake certain obligations by way of contract or otherwise, they are entitled to draw assured benefits. Therefore, the contention that Scheme is non-statutory or otherwise would pale into insignificance. In any way, it cannot be a Wall that would prevent aggrieved citizens, from gaining entry to the portals of Constitutional Court. 5.2. The vehement contention of the learned Senior Panel Counsel & learned AGA that the claim raised in the petitions is time barred, need not be deeply examined by this Court, inasmuch as it is a mixed question of law & facts, and that the factual situation has to be ascertained by the jurisdictional District Page 7 of 12 Collector after looking into the record. That is how the Writ Courts in the country function. That being said, a genuine claim cannot be negatived by just saying that the claim is time barred; that would not augur well to constitutionally ordained Welfare State. Therefore, this aspect of the matter is kept open for consideration at the hands of the jurisdictional District Collector in the light of what is being observed hereinafter. For taking this view, support is gained from the text & context of Collector’s letters dated 13.07.2023 and the Central Government’s Letters dated 14.03.2022, 21.10.2022 & 29.01.2024. One of these letters, which learned Senior Panel Counsel very vociferously read out to adumbrate his stand, would show that timelines are neither static nor inflexible. It is specifically stated that if claims are put-forth after brooking delay, the authorities may consider the same, if plausible explanation is offered therefor and if the same is sanctioned by the Chairman of National Child Labour Project (NCLP). In any circumstance, delay Page 8 of 12 & laches cannot be chanted like a mantra to defeat legitimate claims of citizens. 5.3. The vehement submission of learned AGA that the petitions are hopelessly time barred and therefore, consistent with the statutory duty under section 3 of 1963 Act, this Court should negative the same, does not much impress the Court. As already mentioned, there is a sea difference, which a blind man too can see the difference between the doctrine of delay & laches on the one hand and the law of limitation on the other. Limitation is a factor left to the domain of legislation. Delay & laches are ordinarily in the domain of judicial institution. Decisions of Courts, in this connection, galore in the law reports. His heavy reliance on Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 15 SCC 536 would not much come to the rescue of his clients, more particularly when the District Collector himself had addressed a letter dated 13.07.2023 recommending in a way the case of petitioners, although no specific names do not much figure. Some doubts Page 9 of 12 relating to the meaning and content of these letters were raised by the Panel Counsel. Those doubts are nothing but a nonsense on stilts, to say the least, in view of the collective stand of Central Government as emerging from the three letters mentioned above. If there was any doubt, the clarification could have been had by the Central Government by addressing the District Collector concerned. That having not been demonstrably done, such a vague plea cannot be entertained. 5.4. All the above being said, learned counsel for the petitioners is more than justified in submitting that his clients should not be relegated to the portals of Civil Courts at once when they did not have a fair treatment at the hands of answering opposite parties. The State & its instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are expected to conduct themselves as model or ideal litigants and should not put-forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice, as observed by the Apex Court in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Page 10 of 12 Union of India, (1974) 3 SCC 554. A worthy cause of a citizen cannot be turned down by the constitutional Courts by quoting some jurisprudential theories. Courts are not a happy place where litigants throng out of joy. They come here with penury at heart, having been left with no alternative. Courts in general and Constitutional Court in particular have to be cocksure unmeritorious cause before turning it down. At the same time, this Court cannot undertake a deeper examination of the claims, as if it is the designated authority under the Scheme in question. Added, the record of case does not have complete facts & figures on the basis of which a decision could be made by this Court itself, even otherwise. In the above circumstances, these petitions are allowed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the District Labour Officer-Cum- Project Director, National Child Labour Project, Dhenkanal, so far as W.P.(C) Nos.26890, 26964 & 26981 of 2024 are concerned, and all the matters are remitted for consideration afresh at the hands of jurisdictional District Collector keeping all contentions of the Page 11 of 12 parties open. In the fitness of things, petitioners may submit a set of papers of the claim along with all evidentiary material to facilitate their due consideration at the hands of Jurisdictional District Collector within a period of four (4) weeks to be reckoned from this day. The Jurisdictional District Collector, after ascertaining all factual, shall make appropriate report for recommendation to the Central Government for consideration at its hand within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. The Central Government may solicit any information or documents from the side of implementing agencies and also from the petitioners, if need be. However, a final decision has to be taken within three (3) months from the date the Jurisdictional District Collector submits the recommendation/report. Costs made easy. Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 11th day of November, 2025/Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 14-Nov-2025 18:19:16 Page 12 of 12