Orissa High Court
Sri Manoj Kumar Maharana vs State Of Odisha & Others on 13 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.284 of 2023
Sri Manoj Kumar Maharana ......... Petitioner
Mr. Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate
Ms. Upasana Bala, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .......... Opp. Parties
Mr. D. Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
13.01.2023
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. Basudev Panda, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Ms. Upasana Bala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. We
have also heard Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties on advance notice.
3. The petitioner is a Super Class Contractor, engaged by the
opposite party No.4 for execution of the work in terms of the
agreement dated 06.06.2014. It may be noted that the agreement was
signed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Cuttack.
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.4 to reimburse the differential amount accrued for enhancement of
minimum wages in terms of the Notification No.636 dated
30.04.2015, Annexure-2 to this writ petition.
5. Mr. Panda, learned Senior 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. Panda, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the
similar direction may be issued by this Court.
7. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate has
submitted that the petitioner has not filed any representation. The
petitioner shall file a representation within a period of two weeks
cataloguing the wages on different points of time and accounting the
differential amount that will accrue, in terms of the Notification dated
30.04.2015.
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 representation laying down
the details of the claim within a period of two weeks from today. At
the same time, we direct the opposite party No.4, in particular, to
consider the representation of the petitioner and reimburse the
differential wages in terms of the Notification No.636 dated
30.04.2015, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
9. The entire exercise shall be completed by the opposite party
No.4 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
