Orissa High Court
B. Manoj Kumar Rao vs State Of Odisha And Ors on 23 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 35388 of 2022
B. Manoj Kumar Rao ....... Petitioner
Mr. N. Jujharsingh, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. ...... Opposite Parties.
Mr. D. Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
23.12.2022
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. Nilakantha Jujharsingh, 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 Super Class Contractor, engaged
by the opposite party No.5 for execution of the work in terms
of the agreement. It may be noted that the agreement was
signed by the Executive Engineer, Cuttack (R&B) Division,
Cuttack, now designated as the Superintending Engineer, [the
Opposite Party No.5].
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.5 to reimburse the differential amount
for enhancement of minimum wages in terms of the
Notification, Annexures-2 to 5 to this writ petition.
5. Mr. Jujharsingh, learned counsel for the petitioner has
made of 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
wages of labour component under the agreement
as per Govt. Notification dated 13.7.2009 under
Annexure-2."
6. Mr. Jujharsingh, learned counsel has submitted that
the similar direction may also be passed by this Court.
7. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate
referred to the representation, filed by the petitioner on
29.08.2022, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, has contended
that the said representation will be given due consideration,
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 has accrued
on as per the Notification, Annexures-2 to 5.
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.5 in particular, to consider the representation and
reimburse the differential wages in terms of the Notification,
Annexures-2 to 5 to the writ petition.
9. The entire exercise shall be completed by the
opposite party No.5 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
Murmu
