Orissa High Court
Soleelo Kumar Senapati vs State Of Odisha & Others on 14 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.32762 of 2022
Soleelo Kumar Senapati ......... Petitioner
Mr. Achyutanda Pattnaik, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .......... Opp. Parties
Mr. D. Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
14.12.2022
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. Achyutananda Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner is a Special Class Contractor, engaged by the
opposite party No.3 for execution of the work in terms of the
agreement. It may be noted that the agreement was signed by the
Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Mohana, not the opposite
party No.3.
4. The petitioner has, by means of this writ petition, urged this
Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party
No.3 to reimburse the differential amount for enhancement of
minimum wages in terms of the Notification No.1991 dated
30.10.2018, Annexure-2 to this writ petition.
5. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a
reference to the judgment of this Court in Mahesh Prasad Mishra vs.
State of Orissa & others, reported in 2012 (Supp.-I) OLR-1035. In
the said judgment, it has been observed thus:
"8. In view of the aforesaid statement of law which has
been declared by the Supreme Court and followed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Suryamani Nayak and
another Division Bench in Surendranath Kanungo v. State
of Orissa and M/s. Niligiri Corporation Society Ltd.
(supra), the claim of the petitioner is covered by the
decision of the Division Bench. Therefore, the same shall
be applied to the fact situation and relief be granted. In
view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court
which has been followed by this Court in the aforesaid
cases, the stand taken by the State justifying the impugned
order cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the impugned
orders rejecting the petitioner's prayer for payment of
price escalation/enhancement of rate of wages of labour
and materials vide Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed and
is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed. Direction is given to the opposite parties to pay
the enhanced rate of wages of labour component under the
agreement as per Govt. Notification dated 13.7.2009 under
Annexure-2."
6. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel has submitted that the similar
direction may be passed by this Court.
7. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate referring
to the representation filed by the petitioner on 01.12.2021, Annexure-
5 to the writ petition, has contended that the said representation will
be taken care of, but it will be expedient, if the petitioner files a fresh
representation cataloguing the wages on different points of time and
accounting the differential amount that will accrue on the account of
the petitioner in terms of the Notification dated 09.10.2012.
8. Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the
parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:
We direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation laying
down the details of the claim within a period of seven days from
today. At the same time, we direct the opposite party No.3 in
particular to consider the representation and reimburse the differential
wages in terms of the Notification No.1991 dated 30.10.2018,
Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
9. The entire exercise shall be completed by the opposite party
No.3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the
representation from the petitioner.
10. There shall be no order as to cost.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Subhasis
