Orissa High Court
Samal Barrage Employees' vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 1 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9325 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India and Odisha Service Code.
..................
Samal Barrage Employees' .... Petitioner
Union
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Tripathy (1), Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:17.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:01.12.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy(1), learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
// 2 //
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 31.12.2020, so passed by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-25. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner-Union for regularization of the members of the petitioner-Union was rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner-Union that 1224 members of NMRs employees working in Samal Barrage Project, approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing different Original Applications bearing O.A. Nos.1560(C)/ 1553(C)/ 1562(C)/1651(C)/ 1570(C) & 1781(C) of 1993 seeking regularization of their services. All the original applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide a common judgment dated 02.06.1995 inter alia with the following direction:-
"29. We would accordingly dispose of the original applications with the following directions;
The applicants be brought over to work-charged establishment with effect from 02.09.1993 on which date the first original application No. 1553(C) of 1993 was failed. With effect from the said date they be treated as employees borne in work-charged establishment, not only for the purpose of their salary but also in respect of. other service conditions. They can be retrenched only in accordance with law. They cannot be replaced by persons drawn from other sources. They be paid salary at the initial stage in the scale of pay proved to their counterparts in the work-charged establishment. If in any case, total emoluments per month received at present by any of them exceeds the minimum in the scale his Page 2 of 44 // 3 // counterparts in the work-provided charged establishment, the to same shall be protected.
We refuse the claim of the applicants for regularization or absorption in permanent establishment."
3.1. It is contended that common judgment passed by the Tribunal on 02.06.1995 in all the aforesaid 6 (six) Original Applications, was challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) No.5526-31 of 1996. However, during pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court taking into account the Resolution issued by the Finance Department on 15.05.1997, wherein it was decided to regularize the services of such NMR/DLR work charge employees on completion of 10 years with preference to the work charged employees, Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 26.02.1999, directed the State-authority to file an affidavit within a period of 4 (four) weeks with regard to implication of the scheme issued vide Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997. 3.2. It is also contended that since no such affidavit was filed by the State, SLP(Civil) No.5526-31 of 1996 were dismissed vide order dated 26.09.1999 under Page 3 of 44 // 4 // Annexure-4. Not only that Review Petition filed seeking review of the order was also dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2000 under Annexure-5. It is contended that after dismissal of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order under Annexures-4 & 5, Govt.-O.P. No.1 decided to implement the common judgment passed by the Tribunal on 02.06.1995 and all the applicants in the said Original Applications were brought over to the work charge establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 vide order dated 24.05.2001 under Annexure-6.
3.3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union contended that after being so brought over to the work charge establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993, when the employees affiliated to the Union, were declared surplus and were issued with the notice of termination, such action of the opp. Parties was assailed by the employees along with Union by filing O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002. The tribunal vide order dated 07.03.2002 under Annexure-7, protected the interest of the applicants in all those 5 Page 4 of 44 // 5 // (five) Original Applications and petitioner-Union was also one of the applicants in all the said 5 (five) Original Applications. It is also contended that even though an application was filed seeking clarification of order passed on 07.03.2002 but vide order dated 04.07.2002 under Annexure-8, order passed on 07.03.2002 was reiterated and Opp. Parties were directed to obey the order passed on 07.03.2002.
3.4. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-7 and 8, Govt.- O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 13.03.2003 under Annexure-9, sought for clarification from O.P. No.2 and asked O.P. No.2 to take appropriate action against the applicants involved in O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002 as they have not been protected by the Tribunal. Opp. Party No.2 was also requested to take appropriate action as per the common order passed by the Tribunal on 02.06.1995 under Annexure-1.
3.5. It is contended that subsequently vide another letter issued by Opp. Party No.1 on 30.06.2003 under Page 5 of 44 // 6 // Annexure-10, Opp. Party No.2 was directed to retrench the NMR employees who have been brought over to the work charge establishment in terms of order passed in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch under Annexure-1 by following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. 3.6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that challenging such letter issued on 13.03.2003 and 30.06.2003 under Annexure-9 and 10, the Union approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003. This Court vide order dated 20.08.2003, while issuing notice of the matter, passed an interim order to the following effect:-
"In the meanwhile, none of the NMR employees who have been brought over to work charge employees pursuant to common judgment dated 02.06.1995 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. Nos.1560(c), 1553(c), 1562(c), 1651(c), 1570(c) and 1781(c) of 1993 would be retrenched It is also made clear that in case any of the NMR employees or work- charge employees who has been taken in already pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in O.J.C. No.761/2002 and the Misc. Cases arising there from, they will not be thrown out of employment on account of the interim orders passed by this Court.."
3.7. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 20.08.2003, when the employees affiliated to the Union were not allowed to Page 6 of 44 // 7 // discharge their work, this Court passed the following order:-
"1.Heard Mr. Ray, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Routray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
2. By order dated 20.8.2003 passed in Misc. Case No.8126 of 2003 this Court had directed that in the meanwhile none of the NMR employees who have been brought over to work-charge employees pursuant to the common judgment dated 2.6.1995 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.Nos.1560(c),1553 (c), 1562(c), 1561(c), 1570(c) and 1781(c) of 1993 would be retrenched.
3. It is stated by Mr. Ray that the authorities are not allowing the petitioners to work since there is no express order by this Court to allow the said NMR employees to continue in work.
4. By the said order dated 20.8.2003, we have stayed retrenchment of the aforesaid NMR employees and accordingly, the said NMR employees have to be continued in service till further orders passed by this Court.
This matter will be listed in the week commencing from 20.10.2003 for orders.
A copy of this order be served on Mr. Routray by Friday."
3.8. It is contended that in the meantime some of the similarly situated NMR/work-charge employees taking into account the nature of order passed by this Court on 20.08.2003 in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12734 of 2003 and with a prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to release the current salary and consequential benefits who have Page 7 of 44 // 8 // been illegally restrained from discharging their duty. It is contended that this Court vide order dated 22.12.2004, directed the Opp. Parties to calculate the arrears of different individual persons and release the same by end of June, 2005. Similar order was also passed by this Court on 22.12.2004 in another Writ Petition filed by similarly situated employees in W.P.(C) No.12736 of 2003.
3.9. It is contended that on the face of such interim orders passed by this Court on 20.08.2003 and further order passed on 23.09.2003 in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003, employees of the petitioner-Union who had been brought over to the work-charge establishment pursuant to the common order passed on 02.06.1995 in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch, were never allowed to discharge their duty even though after passing of the interim order on 20.08.2002, the employees concerned submitted the applications on 22.08.2003 under Annexure-13 series with a prayer to allow them to discharge their duty in the work-charge establishment.
Page 8 of 44
// 9 // 3.10. It is also contended that since order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with dismissal of the SLPs vide order dated 19.03.2000 and the Review Petition filed was also dismissed on 19.04.2000 and the employees of the Union were brought over to the work charge establishment w.e.f. 24.05.2001, there was no occasion to declare them as surplus with issuance of the notice of retrenchment.
3.11. It is also contended that even though petitioners were issued with such notices proposing there retrenchment but on the face of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 07.03.2002 in O.A. No.122(C) of 2002 and batch under Annexure-7 and further order passed on 04.07.2002 under Annexure-8, petitioners were not allowed to discharge their duty in terms of the letter issued by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 on 13.03.2003 and 30.06.2003 under Annexure-9 and 10. Not only that W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 so filed by the Union challenging the letters. This Court vide order dated 20.08.2003, restrained the Opp. Parties to Page 9 of 44 // 10 // retrenched the employees of the Union vide another order passed on 23.09.2003, the Opp. Parties are also directed to allow the petitioners to continue. 3.12. But it is regret to mention here that orders passed by the Tribunal on 07.03.2002 and 04.07.2002 under Annexure-7 and 8, so also the order passed by this Court on 20.08.2003 and 23.09.2003 were never followed by the Opp. Parties in allowing the employees of the Union to discharge their work. However, W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 along with W.P.(C) No.9787 of 2003 were disposed of by this Court ultimately vide order dated 13.04.2005 under Annexure-18 on the ground of maintainability. Para-10 of the order dated 13.04.2005 reads as follows:-
"10. In the midst of hearing, the petitioners filed interim applications, which have been registered as Misc. Case No.2412 of 2005 and Misc. Case No.2411 of 2005. In these misc. cases, the petitioners have prayed for interim release of their current/arrear salaries. Mr. Roy submitted that some of the employees similarly situated like the petitioners have filed separate writ applications claiming for their current/arrear salaries, which have been registered as W.P,(C) Nos. 12734 and 12736 of 2003, which are now pending before this Court. In the said writ petitions, order has been passed by this Court for interim release of the arrear salaries basing upon the letter dated 20.12.2004 of the Executive Engineer, O.E.C.F. Division No.V, Sukinda, where the Government has conceded for release of salaries. After Page 10 of 44 // 11 // perusal of the records of the aforesaid writ petition and the orders passed therein, this Court is of the considered view that the present petitioners are also entitled to the similar relief. But since this Court has already held that these writ applications are not maintainable, it is not proper to pass any further interim orders. This Court, however, observes that in the event the petitioners file interim applications before the Tribunal the Tribunal shall do well to pass appropriate orders in the light of interim orders passed in W.P(C) Nos.12734 and 12736 of 2003. This observation is made in order to maintain parity. This Court considering the nature and urgency of the matter directs the Tribunal to dispose of O.A. Nos. 122(C) to 126(C) of 2002 within four months of the receipt of this order. Till then, the interim orders dated 20.08.2003 and 23.09.2003 shall continue."
3.13. It is contended that order dated 13.04.2005 so passed in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 and further order passed on 21.12.2006 in Review Petition No.40 and 41 of 2005 though was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.675 of 2008, but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2010 with the following order:-
"This appeal is directed against orders dated 13.4.2005 and 21.12.2006 passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 7902 of 2003 and 9787 of 2003 and Review Petition Nos. 40 and 41 of 2005 respectively.
The appellants filed two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of communications dated 13.3.2003, 29.3.2003 and 30.6.2003 issued by the State Government, Department of Water Resources and Chief Engineer and Basin Manager, Brahmani Left Basin, Samal in the matter of retrenchment of work-charged employees. The thrust of the case set up by the appellants was that in view of the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 122 (C) of 2002, they could Page 11 of 44 // 12 // not have been retrenched and the respondents were duty bound to take action in terms of the order passed in O.A. No. 1560 (C) of 1993 and batch.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, an objection was to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the only remedy available to the petitioners was to approach the Tribunal.
The Division Bench accepted the objection raised on behalf of the respondents and held that the writ petitions filed by the appellants are not maintainable. The relevant portion of the order passed by the High Court is extracted below:
"Undisputedly, the members of the Petitioner- Union have approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos.122 (c) to 126 (c) of 2002. In those original applications, the Tribunal has passed interim order protecting the interest of the employees. Since the employees have already approached the Tribunal, the present writ applications their instance are not maintainable. Moreover, the employees represented by the Petitioner-Union are working in the work-charged establishment and as such are holder of Civil Post under the State Government. of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 vests jurisdiction in the Administrative Tribunal to deal with all matters pertaining to service under the Government. Therefore, the Orissa Administrative Tribunal has ample power and jurisdiction to effectively deal with the grievances of the employees. In Deep Chand's case (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that in respect of a claim by the daily wager employees, the remedy lies before the Tribunal not before the High Court. In view of such decision of the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the remedy available to the present petitioners is to agitate their grievance before the Tribunal and not before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to hold that the present writ applications are not maintainable."
The Review Petitions filed by the appellants were that dismissed by the High Court with an observation order dated 13.4.2005 does not suffer from any error apparent and power of review cannot be confused with the appellate power.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Since the directions given by the concerned authorities for termination of the services of the Page 12 of 44 // 13 // employees fall within the definition of the term -service matters" contained in Section 3 (q) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act'), the High Court rightly held that the writ petitioners should first avail remedy by filing application before the Tribunal and in view of the law laid down by the larger Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125, we do not see any reason to take a different view. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving the appellants free to avail remedy by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.
Since the matter remained pending before the High Court and this Court for sufficiently long period, we deem it proper to make it clear that if the appellants file an application before the Tribunal within a period of one month from today along with an application under Section 21 (3) of the Act for condonation of delay, then the same shall be entertained and the original application shall be decided on merits."
3.14. It is contended that pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 01.06.2010, the Union approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2000(C) of 2010. The said Original Application in O.A. No.2000(C) of 2010 was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2013 under Annexure-20 inter alia with the following observation and direction:-
"In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view, seniority list in respect of each project may continue in respect of DLR/NMR/work charged employees. But once the project is closed, for maintenance of the project a good number of NMR/DLR work charged employees are allowed to continue till they attain the age of retirement on superannuation. As such it will be appropriate if one common seniority list for all these employees, work charged/NMR/DLR who working are employees in as different - and Las major/minor/medium projects shall be Page 13 of 44 // 14 // maintained and when any vacancy in work charged and regular establishment is available, on the basis of their seniority D.L.R. and N.M.R. establishment they can be brought over to the work charged establishment and work charged employees can be regularized as against those posts irrespective of the project in which they are working and once the work charged employees have been brought over to regular establishment, the vacant work charged posts shall be filled up by the available DLR/NMR employees."
3.15. It is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal on 08.02.2013 in O.A. No.2000(C) of 2013 was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013. The said Writ Petition however was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019 in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.7813 of 2003 on 07.02.2019. Order dated 07.02.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.7813 of 2003 reads as follows:-
"4. Perused the said order dated 07.02.2019 in detail. For ready reference, the said order is reproduced hereunder:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners, who are the work-charged employees w.e.f. 2.9.1993, have challenged the order of retrenchment dated 30.06.2003 at Annexure-6 issued by the opposite party No.1 and subsequent notices dated 25.7.2003 under Annexure-7 series issued by the respective Engineers of the projects.
On 20.08.2003, this Court while issuing notice, in the present case, passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State Issue notice.Page 14 of 44
// 15 // Mr. Mohanty accepts notice on behalf of all the opp. parties. Extra copies of the writ petition be served on him by 22.8.2003, if not already served.
In the meanwhile, none of the NMR employees who have been brought over to work-charge employees pursuant to the common judgment dated 2nd June, 1995 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. Nos. 1560(c), 1553(c), 1562(c), 1651(c), 1570(c) and 1781(c) of 1993 would be retrenched. It is also made clear that in case any of the NMR employees or work-charge employees who has been taken in already pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in O.J.C. No.761/2002 and the Misc. Cases arising there from, they will not be thrown out of employment on account of the interim orders passed by this Court today.
This case requires early hearing and disposal and for the said purpose, we direct the matter to be listed on 3rd September, 2003 for orders.
Counter affidavit, if any, will be filed in the meantime."
Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly makes a statement that except one employee, all other employees are continuing in the service as on date.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us to the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 26.02.1999 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10362, 10363/95 (State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kr. Mohanty & Ors.) and contends that in view of the statement made before Supreme Court of India during the proceedings of the said case, the Supreme Court had passed the direction, which reads as under:
"We are giving a last opportunity to the State of Orissa to satisfy us that the Scheme that it has formulated has been put into operation. For this purpose, it must place on affidavit within four weeks, how many persons in the categories of daily wagers, NMRs and work charge employees are intended to be covered by the Scheme and how many out of them have actually been absorbed pursuant thereto. The affidavit shall indicate when all the persons who were affected shall be absorbed under the Scheme.
Adjourned for four weeks. No further adjournment shall be granted."
Ultimately, the aforesaid SLPs along with some other connected SLPs came for hearing on 26.3.1999, wherein after condoning the delay, the SLPs were dismissed.
However, on 30.6.2003 the opposite party No.1 passed the impugned order, which reads as under: Page 15 of 44
// 16 // From Shri Mayadhar Panigrahi, IAS, Additional Secretary to Govt.
To The Chief Engineer & Basin Manager, Brahmani Left Basin, Samal.
Sub: OJC No.761/2002 Bijaya Kumar Nanda and Others Vrs. State of Orissa and Others.
Sir, In inviting reference to your letter No. 12384/WE dt.24.6.03 on the subject noted above I am directed to say that balance employees out of the 1225 NMR employees who have been brought over to W/C establishment pursuant to the common judgment dt.2.9.93 No.1560(C)/93, 1553(C)/93, 1651(C)/93, 1570(C)/93,1781(C)/93, be retrenched forthwith following the provisions contained in the I.D. Act in order to comply the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in OJC No.761/02. in Ο.Α.
Yours faithfully, Additional Secretary to Govt."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also taken us to the counter affidavit in reply and rejoinder filed therein and it is submitted that the petitioners are the work-charged employees w.e.f. 2.9.1993, as per the direction of the learned Tribunal, read with the order of the Hon'ble Apex court as stated supra. Further most of the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 761/2002 are juniors than the present petitioners in the Nominal Muster Roll and they entered as NMR employees on later dates than the present petitioners. As the petitioners are brought to the work-charged establishment in view of the judicial order of the Tribunal read with the order of the Supreme Court referred above and meanwhile more than 15 years have been passed, at this stage the petitioners should not be thrown out.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records. It will not be out of place to mention here that petitioners, except few, are still continuing in services right from 1993 till today. Further, because of the impugned order of this Court dated 20.8.2003 (quoted above), they are continuing and in the meantime, fifteen years have elapsed. Further, by efflux of time, some of them have retired or might retire within a short span of time. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the law prevailing as on today that the Work Charge and NMR employees are required to be paid minimum regular pay scale, we are of the view that retrenchment of the Page 16 of 44 // 17 // petitioners at the fag end their services is inappropriate. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioners, who have not yet retired, will not be retrenched from the services.
In view of the above, the impugned order of retrenchment dated 30.6.2003 is required to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
No order as to costs."
3.16. It is also contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 24.10.2019, employees of the petitioner-Union were never allowed to continue.
However, taking into account the nature of order passed in allowing the employees of the Union to be brought over to the work charge establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 and the interim orders by the Tribunal as well as by this Court on different occasion, the Union once again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2020 seeking regularization of the services of the members of the petitioner-Union. 3.17. It is contended that when order dated 29.01.2020 was not complied with, the Union filed CONTC No.896 of 2021, this Court vide order dated 01.03.2021 when directed for compliance of order dated 29.01.2020 in CONTC No.896 of 2021, challenging the said order passed in CONTC No.896 of Page 17 of 44 // 18 // 2021, State moved the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) No.4402 of 2021 along with some connected appeals were disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 07.03.2022 under Annexure-24. Vide the said order and taking into account the rejection of the claim of the members of the Union for their regularization so passed on 31.12.2020 pursuant to order dated 29.01.2020 in W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2020, Hon'ble Apex Court granted liberty to petitioner-Union to challenge order dated 31.12.2020, which is now impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3.18. While assailing the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 so issued under Annexure-5, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that members of the petitioner-Union while continuing as NMRs, they moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch seeking regularization, the tribunal vide order dated 02.06.1995 under Annexure-1, directed the State-Machinery to bring over the members of the Petitioner-Union to the work charge establishment. After dismissal of the matter by the Page 18 of 44 // 19 // Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 19.03.2000 and dismissal of the Review Petition vide order dated 19.04.2000, members of the petitioner-Union were brought over to the work charge establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993.
3.19. However, on the face of such benefit extended in bringing over the members of the petitioner-Union to the work charge establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993, when they were declared Surplus and issued with notices proposing their retrenchment, the matter was assailed before the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002. However, on the face of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 07.03.2002 and further order passed on 04.07.2002 restraining the Opp. Parties to terminate the members of the petitioner-Union, Govt.- O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 13.03.2003 and 30.06.2003 under Annexure-9 and 10, when directed the Opp. Party No.2 to retrench the members of the petitioner- Union who have been brought over to the work charge establishment pursuant to the order passed in O.A. Nos.1560(C) of 1993 and batch, the same was Page 19 of 44 // 20 // challenged by the petitioner-Union before this Court in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003.
3.20. It is contended that on the face of the order passed by this Court on 20.08.2003 and subsequent order on 23.09.2003, members of the petitioner-Union were never allowed to continue. Letter dated 30.06.2003 though was quashed by this Court in its order dated 24.10.2019 in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013 under Annexure-21, but on the face of such quashing of the impugned letter dated 30.06.2003, petitioners were never allowed to continue in the work charge establishment in which they were brought over w.e.f. 02.09.1993. It is however contended that at no point of time, any formal order of retrenchment was issued to the members of the petitioner-Union by the Opp. Parties.
3.21. It is contended that on the face of the interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.122(c) of 2002 and batch and the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 and quashing of the letter Page 20 of 44 // 21 // dated 30.06.2003 by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013, petitioners when were neither allowed to continue nor regularized in their services, petitioner- Union approached this Court seeking regularization of its members in W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 29.01.2020, when directed Opp. Party No.1 to take steps for regularization of the members of the petitioner-Union, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 under Annexure-25. 3.22. It is accordingly contended that in view of the nature of order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 on 02.06.1995, confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with dismissal of the appeals vide order dated 19.03.2000 and dismissal of the Review vide order dated 19.04.2000, members of the petitioner-Union though were brought over to the work charge establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993, but they were illegally declared as surplus and were issued with the notice of retrenchment in terms of the provisions contained under I.D. Act. Even though such notice of retrenchment was interfered with by the Tribunal vide Page 21 of 44 // 22 // order dated 07.03.2002 in O.A. No.122(C) of 2002 and batch but on the face of such interim order passed, petitioners were directed to be terminated by the Govt.- O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 13.03.2003 and 30.06.2003 under Annexure-9 and 10.
3.23. Not only that on the face of the interim order passed by this Court on 20.08.2003 in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 and further order passed on 23.09.2003 in the said writ petition, members of the petitioner-union were neither allowed to continue nor they were paid with their salaries. However, since letter dated 30.06.2003 was quashed by this Court in its order dated 24.10.2019 in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013 under Annexure-21, rejection of the petitioners claim to get the benefit of regularization vide order dated 31.12.2020 under Annexure-25 is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the said impugned order needs interference of this Court. 3.24. It is however contended that since in the meantime most of the members of the petitioner-Union Page 22 of 44 // 23 // have attained the age of superannuation save and except around 80 members of employees, all those employees who have attained the age of superannuation in the meantime, be treated as regular employees and those employees who have not yet been attained the age of superannuation, be allowed to continue and they be regularized in their services in terms of Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997 and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 and the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018.
4. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Opp. Page 23 of 44
// 24 // Parties. It is contended that though pursuant to order dated 02.06.1995, so passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) No.5526-31 of 1996 were brought over to the work charged establishment on 02.09.1993, but in the said order, it was clearly observed that members of the petitioner- Union can be retrenched only in accordance with law but it cannot be replaced by persons drawing from other sources.
4.1. Vide order dated 31.05.2001 under Annexure- C/3, applicants in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch, were appointed in the work charged establishment as against clarification held by them NMR category w.e.f. 02.09.1993 with usual Dear allowances as applicable on that date but they may be paid w.e.f. 01.04.2001 in the initial scale of pay, order dated 31.05.2001 so passed under Annexure-C/3 basing on the letter issued by the Govt. on 24.05.2001 under Annexure-B/3 reads as follows:-
Page 24 of 44
// 25 // "I am directed to say that pursuant to the decision in the common judgement of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal mentioned above, the SLP and review petition arising there from having been dismissed by the Supreme Court of India. Government have been pleased to decide that, the 1225 Nos of applicants involved in the aforesaid cases as intimated in your Memo. No 477/WE, dtd. the 06 January 2001 may be treated as Work-Charged employees with effect from the 2nd September 1993. The aforesaid employees will, for the present draw their initials in the initials and calculation on the basis of this entitlement of the employees immediately be made with effect from 02.09.1993 and intimated to this Deptt.
The aforesaid applicants may be allowed to draw salary in the above manner with effect from April 2001."
4.2. It is contended that not being satisfied with the order dated 24.05.2001 and further order passed on 31.05.2001 under Annexure-B/3 and C/3. Such NMRs employees were brought over to the work charged establishment on 02.09.1993 with the benefit from 01.04.2001, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.122(C) of 2002 and batch. However, all those Original Applications in O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002 were disposed of by this Court on transfer vide order dated 18.01.2023.
4.3. It is contended that even though members of the petitioner-Union pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1560(c) of 1993 and batch, were Page 25 of 44 // 26 // brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f.
02.09.1993 vide communications issued vide Annexure-B/3 and C/3 Govt.- in the department of Water Resources in its letter dated 29.05.2001 to review the cases of surplus staff of different project and circulars and for their retrenchment. Basing on the said letter issued by the Govt. on 29.05.2001 and the members of the Petitioner-Union were declared surplus and were issued with the notice of retrenchment vide letter dated 13.03.2003 and 30.06.2003 under Annexure-9 and 10, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003. However, W.P.(C) N.7902 of 2003 along with W.P.(C) No.9787 of 2003 were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2005 and Review Petition filed by the Petitioner-
Union was also dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2006 under Annexure-F/3 and G/3 respectively. Challenging such order passed on 13.04.2005 and further order passed on 21.12.2006 under Annexure-G/3, the Union though moved the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No.675 of 2008 but Hon'ble Apex Court Page 26 of 44 // 27 // dismissed the appeal vide order dated 01.06.2010 under Annexure-H/3.
4.4. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 01.06.2010 under Annexure-H/3, petitioner-Union though moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2000(C) of 2010 seeking regularization of its members and the said original applications were disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2013 under Annexure-J/3. Order passed under Annexure-J/3 was subsequently challenged by the petitioner-Union before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.02.2019 in the light of the order dated 07.02.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.7813 of 2003 under Annexure- H/3.
4.5. Pursuant to such order passed by this Court on 24.10.2019 in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013, petitioner- Union approached this Court once again by filing W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2020 and with a further prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to regularize the services of the Page 27 of 44 // 28 // members of the petitioner-Union. Even though the said order was assailed by the State but in compliance to the order dated 29.01.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2020, claim of the petitioner-Union was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2020 under Annexure-25. 4.6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate accordingly contended that since after being brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 pursuant to common order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch, petitioners were declared as surplus and were issued with the notice of termination, rejection of their claim for regularization has been rightly made vide the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 under Annexure-25.
4.7. It is accordingly contended that since members of the petitioner-Union are not in service after 30.06.2003, their claim for regularization does not deserve any consideration and the same has been rightly rejected, which requires no interference. Page 28 of 44
// 29 //
5. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union made further submission that while making submissions as pleaded in the Writ Petition initially, it is contended that on the face of the interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.122(C) of 2002 to 126(C) of 2002 and the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 with quashing of the letter dated 30.06.2003 by this Court in its order dated 24.10.2019 in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013, it is contended that there was no occasion to treat the members of the petitioner-Union as retrenched employees w.e.f. 30.06.2003.
5.1. It is also contended that at no point of time, petitioners were issued with any formal order of retrenchment and no such document has also been enclosed by the state in its counter. It is contended that since at no point of time, petitioner was issued with formal order of retrenchment, retrenching the services of its members, taking into account the nature of order passed in O.A. No.122(C) of 2002 to 126(C) of Page 29 of 44 // 30 // 2002 and further interim order passed by this Court, it cannot be held that petitioners were terminated from their services at any point of time. It is also contended that the impugned notice of termination issued by the Govt. order dated 30.06.2003 under Annexure-10 was quashed by this Court in its order dated 24.10.2019 in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013.
5.2. It is also contended that in the meantime and during pendency of the Writ Petition in O.A. No.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002, were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2023 under Annexure-32. Vide the said order, State-Opp. Parties have been directed to extend similar benefit in favour of the applicants in the said Original Applications in the light of the benefit extended in favour of one Narsu Pradhan, applicant in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006 decided on 11.06.2009. It is also contended that such an order passed by this Court on 18.01.2023 under Annexure-32 has not been assailed by the State.
Page 30 of 44
// 31 // 5.3. Making all these submission, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union contended that since because of the illegal action of the Opp. Parties in not following the order passed by the Tribunal as well as by this Court, petitioners were not allowed to continue on the face of their being brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 vide order dated 24.05.2001 and further order passed on 31.05.2001 under Annexure-B/3 and C/3, all those employees who have now attained the age of superannuation, be extended with the benefit of a regular employee in the light of the order passed in the case of Narsu Pradhan. All such members who have not attained the age of superannuation as on date, be allowed to continue and be treated as a regular employee on completion of 5 years of engagement w.e.f. 02.09.1993.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that petitioner-Union seeking regularization of the Page 31 of 44 // 32 // services of 1224 Nos. of NMR employees working in Samal Barrage project, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch. The said batch of Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide a common order dated 02.06.1995 and with a direction on the Opp. Parties to bring over the members of the Petitioner-Union to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993.
6.1. The judgment passed by the Tribunal on 02.06.1995, though was assailed by the State before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) Nos.5526-31 of 1996, but all those original applications were dismissed vide order dated 26.03.1999 under Annexure-4. The Review Petition filed seeking review of order dated 26.03.1999 was also rejected vide order dated 19.04.2000 under Annexure-5.
6.2. After such dismissal of the matter by the Hon'ble Apex Court, order passed by the Tribunal on 02.06.1995, was implemented in bringing over the members of the petitioner-Union to the work charged Page 32 of 44 // 33 // establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 vide order dated 24.05.2001 under Annexure-6. Even though all such NMRs employees belonging to petitioner-union were brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 vide order dated 24.05.2001 under Annexure-6, but petitioners when were declared surplus vide another communication issued by the department on the very same day, and were issued with the notice of termination, such notice of termination was assailed by the employees concerned in O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002.
6.3. The Tribunal vide order dated 07.03.2002 under Annexure-7, protected the interest of the applicants therein. The application filed by the State seeking clarification of order dated 07.03.2002 was also disposed of vide order dated 04.07.2002 under Annexure-8. While passing such an order under Annexue-8, Opp. Parties were directed to obey the order passed on 07.03.2002.
Page 33 of 44
// 34 // 6.4. It is found that on the face of such order passed by the Tribunal, Opp. Party No.1 vide letter dated 13.03.2003 under Annexure-9, while serving clarification from Opp. Party No.2, directed Opp. Party No.2 to take appropriate action against the applicants in O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002, as they have not been protected by the Tribunal. Vide the said letter, Opp. Party No.2 was also requested to take appropriate action as per the common order passed by the Tribunal on 02.06.1995 under Annexure-1.
6.5. It is also found that on the face of such interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002 on 07.03.2002, Opp. Party No.1 vide another letter issued on dated 30.06.2003 under Annexure-10, directed Opp. Party No.2 to retrench the members of the petitioner-Union who have been brought over to the work charged establishment in terms of the order passed in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch under Annexure-1, by following the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. Page 34 of 44
// 35 // 6.6. It is found that challenging the communication issued by Opp. Party No.1 on 13.03.2003 and 30.06.2003 under Annexures-9 and 10, petitioner- Union approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003. This Court vide order dated 20.08.2003, though passed an interim order, observing therein that members of the petitioner-Union will not be thrown out of the employment. But on the face of such order passed by this Court on 20.08.2003, members of the petitioner-Union when were not allowed to discharge their work, this Court passed a further order, on 23.09.2003 holding therein that members of the petitioner-Union have to be continued in their services, till further order passed.
6.7. However, W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 was disposed of vide order dated 13.04.2005 under Annexure-18 on the ground of maintainability. While disposing the Writ Petition vide order dated 13.04.2005 under Annexure- 18, this Court also observed that interim order passed on dated 20.08.2003 and 23.09.2003 shall continue. Page 35 of 44
// 36 // 6.8. Order dated 13.04.2005, so passed in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 though was assailed by filing Review Petition Nos.40 & 41 of 2005 and subsequently Hon'ble Apex Court was also moved in Civil Appeal No.675 of 2008, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2010. While not entertaining the appeal against order dated 13.04.2005, Hon'ble Apex Court granted liberty to the petitioner-Union to move a fresh application seeking regularization of the services of the members of the petitioner-Union. Accordingly O.A. No.2000(C) of 2010 was filed by the Petitioner-Union seeking regularization of the services of the members, who were brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993, basing on the order passed in OA No.1560(o)/1993 & batch.
6.9. The Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2013 under Annexure-20, disposed of the said original application, observing that the vacant work charged post shall be filled up by the available DLR/NMR employees. However, order dated 08.02.2013, so passed in O.A. No.2000(C) of 2013, was assailed before this Court in Page 36 of 44 // 37 // W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.10.2019, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.7813 of 2003 on 07.02.2019. Vide order dated 07.02.2019 in W.P.(C) No.7813 of 2003, letter issued by the Opp. Party No.1 on 30.06.2003, directing Opp. Party No.2 to retrench the members of the Petitioner Union who have been brought over to the work-charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 pursuant to order passed in O.A. No.1560(o) of 1993 & batch, by following due procedure of law was quashed.
6.10.On the face of such order passed by this Court on 24.10.2019 in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013, members of the petitioner-union were never allowed to discharge their duty. Petitioner accordingly approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2020 seeking regularisation of their services.
6.11. It is found that order passed by this Court on 29.01.2020, when was not complied with and vide order dated 01.3.2021, in the Contempt Petition, Opp. Page 37 of 44
// 38 // Party No.1 was directed to comply order dated 29.01.2020, challenging such order, State moved the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) No.4002 of 2021. While disposing the appeal so filed, Hon'ble Apex Court granted liberty to the petitioner-Union to challenge order dated 31.12.2020, by which claim of the Petitioner Union pursuant to order dated 29.01.2020 was rejected. Accordingly, order dated 31.12.2020 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 6.12. This Court taking into account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal on 02.06.1995 in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch and implementation of the said order by bringing over the members of the petitioner-Union to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 vide order dated 24.05.2001 under Annexure-6, is of the view that after bringing over the members of the petitioner-Union to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch, members of the petitioner-Union should not Page 38 of 44 // 39 // have been treated as surplus with issuance of the notice of retrenchment.
6.13. Such notice of retrenchment when was assailed in O.A. No.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002, the Tribunal vide order dated 07.03.2002 and order dated 04.07.2003 passed an order by protecting the interest of the applicants in those O.A.s.
6.14. On the face of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 07.03.2002 and further order passed on 04.07.2002, Opp. Party No.1 vide letter dated 13.03.2003 and 30.06.2003 under Annexure-9 and 10, when directed Opp. Party No.2 to retrench the NMR employees who have been brought over to the work charged establishment pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1560(C) of 1993 and batch by following the provisions of I.D. Act, challenging such communication issued on 13.03.2003 and 30.06.2003 under Annexure-9 and 10, petitioner-Union approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003. This Court also passed an interim order on Page 39 of 44 // 40 // 20.08.2003 and by restraining the Opp. Parties that members of the petitioner-Union will not be thrown out of the employment.
6.15. On the face of such order passed by this Court on 20.08.2003, when the members of the petitioner- Union were not allowed to discharge their work, this Court directed the Opp. Parties to continue with the services of such NMR employees until further orders. However, W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 was remitted to the Tribunal vide order dated 13.04.2005 under Annexure-
18. While remitting the matter to the Tribunal, this Court clearly observed that interim order passed on 20.08.2003 and 23.09.2003 shall continue. 6.16. On the face of such order passed by this Court on 13.04.2005, members of the petitioner-Union were never allowed to discharge their duty. However, challenge made to the said order dated 13.04.2005, was not entertained by the Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing Civil Appeal No.675 of 2008 vide order dated 01.06.2010.
Page 40 of 44
// 41 // 6.17. On such remand of the matter as per order dated 13.04.2005, W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2003 was registered as O.A. No.2000(C) of 2010. The said original application however was disposed of vide order dated on 08.02.2013 under Annexure-20. Such order passed by the Tribunal on 08.02.2013 was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10562 of 2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.10.2019, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.7813 of 2003. Vide order dated 07.02.2019, letter issued by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 on 30.06.2003 directing the Opp. Party No.2 to retrench the NMR Employees belonging to the petitioner-Union was quashed.
6.18. But it is found that, on the face of orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by this Court protecting the interest of the petitioners, members of the petitioner- Union were never allowed to discharge their duty after issuance of the notice of retrenchment, which was the subject matter of challenge in O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002.
Page 41 of 44
// 42 // 6.19. O.A. Nos.122(C) to 126(C) of 2002 in the meantime were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2023 under Annexure-32. This Court vide the said order, directed the Opp. Parties to extend similar benefit in the light of the benefit extended in favour of one Narsu Pradhan applicant in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006, so decided on 11.06.2009. Order passed by this Court on 18.08.2023 under Annexure- 32 has not been assailed by the State.
6.20. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the fact that members of the petitioner-Union have never been retrenched with formal order of retrenchment, this Court is of the view that rejection of the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of regularization vide order dated 31.12.2020 under Annexure-25, is not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court while quashing the said order, directs Opp. Party No.1 to extend the benefit of regularization and pensionary benefits as due and admissible under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 in favour of those work-charged employees who on the face of the interim order have attained the Page 42 of 44 // 43 // age of superannuation in the meantime in the light of the decision in the case of Narsu Pradhan. 6.21. This Court further directs O.P.No.1 to re-engage such work-charged employees who have not yet attained the age of superannuation and regularize their services in terms of the Finance Department Resolution issued on 15.05.1997 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi, M.L. Keshari as well as the recent decisions in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh.
6.22. It is also the view of this Court that on the face of the interim order passed by the Tribunal as well as by this Court, since the members of the Petitioner Union were not allowed to discharge duty, no fault lies with the members of the petitioner-Union and it is to be held that members of the Petitioner Union continued in their services as work-charged employees although. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to pass appropriate order as directed here-in-above within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. Page 43 of 44
// 44 //
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 1st December, 2025/Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Dec-2025 11:15:54 Page 44 of 44