Orissa High Court
Chintamani Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 24 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3328 of 2025
Chintamani Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.140 of 2025
Bipin Bihari Samal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.199 of 2025
Pabitra Mohan Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.209 of 2025
Pahali Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Page 1 of
11.
WP(C) No.240 of 2025
Chandramani Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.247 of 2025
Lokanath Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.258 of 2025
Dasarathi Dehury ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.299 of 2025
Kushadhwaja Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
Page 2 of
11.
WP(C) No.304 of 2025
Pabitra Mohan Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.330 of 2025
Antaryami Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.367 of 2025
Anirudha Pani ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.369 of 2025
Bhaktabandhu Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
Page 3 of
11.
WP(C) No.371 of 2025
Mitu Biswal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.393 of 2025
Debendra Kumar Garnayak ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.442 of 2025
Rabi Chandra Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.1781 of 2025
Harmohan Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
Page 4 of
11.
WP(C) No.2309 of 2025
Panchanan Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.2427 of 2025
Sudhakar Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
WP(C) No.3329 of 2025
Meghamala Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.M.R. Mohanty,
A.G.A.
Page 5 of
11.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 24.02.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Since all the writ applications mentioned hereinabove involve a
common question of law as well as an identical state of facts, they are
taken for hearing together. After hearing the counsels appearing from
both sides, all the above mentioned writ applications are being disposed
of by the following common order.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto.
4. The Petitioners has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"In the circumstances, it is humbly prayed to this Hon'ble court
may be pleased to issue notice to the 0pp. parties as to why the
case shall not be allowed and after hearing parties may kindly
be directed to the opp. parties to regularize the disengagement
period of the applicant i.e.,from 15.03.2003 to 08.08.2012,
09.03.2002 to 26.07.2012, 15.03.2003 to 26.07.2012,
29.03.2003 to 21.07.2012, 29.03.2003 to 26.07.2012,
29.03.2003 to 21.07.2012, 29.03.2003 to 21.07.2012,
28.03.2003 to 21.07.2012, 29.03.2003 to 21.07.2012,
29.03.2003 to 21.07.2012, 29.03.2003 to 21.07.2012,
01.04.2003 to 17.12.2012, 11.03.2002 to 17.07.2014,
29.03.2003 to 21.07.2012, 23.03.2002 to 21.07.2012,
23.03.2002 to 21.07.2012, 29.03.2003 to 26.07.2012,
23.03.2002 to 21.07.2012, 29.03.2003 to 21.07.2012 with all
financial benefit including promotion and all other benefit
which has been granted to his counterpart employees as "No
work no pay" is not applicable to the petitioner's case by
quashing the Order memo No-218 dtd.25.01.2023, memo No-
Page 6 of
11.
202 dtd.25.01.2023, memo No-21 dtd. 20.01.2023, memo No-
979 dtd. 09.02.2023, memo No-248 dtd. 02.02.2023, memo No-
114 dtd.16.01.2023, memo No-727, dtd.10.02.2023, memo No-
185, dtd. 30.01.2023, memo No-181, dtd.30.01.2023, memo No-
496, dtd. 30.01.2023, memo No-196 dtd.30.01.2023, memo No-
4808 dtd.12.07.2023, memo No-4814 dtd.12.07.2023, memo
No-186, dtd.06.02.2023, memo No-1739, dtd.09.11.2023, memo
No-90, dtd.24.01.2023, memo No-159, dtd.06.02.2023, memo
No-07, dtd.05.01.2023, memo No-89, dtd.01.02.2023 under
Annexure-7 for the interest of justice.
And further necessary directions may issue to the opp. parties
to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of law laid
down by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in its judgment dtd.
19.04.2022 in W.P.C (C) No- 6277/2014 Madan Chandra
Nayak Versus Principal Secretary to Govt.and batch which has
been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order dtd.
05.12.2024 in Special leave to Appeal (C) Nos-16485 -
16487/2023 in the and case of Jugal Kishore Nayak oder
passed in WPC NO-1065/2009 dtd.06,12.20211, which has
been implemented by the state in a CONTC proceeding vide
order dtd.Ol.10.2016 passed in CONTC No-2290/2012.
And pass any order/orders which the Hon'ble court may deem
fit and proper."
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners were appointment on NMR basis in the year 1980. On
02.09.1993, the petitioners were brought over to the work charge
establishment. While working as such, the petitioners were retrenched
wrongly from service in the year 2003 & 2002. Thereafter, the
petitioners were again re-engaged in service on the basis of the decision
taken in the High Power Committee meeting held on 12.08.2003 in
presence of ministry of the State Finance. Further referring to the
decision under Annexure-5 learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that a decision was taken by the High Power Committee meeting to re-
deploy the work charged employee. He further contended that after
redressal of the grievances of the employees who were working in the
work charge establishment, a decision was taken to refer the matter to a
High Power Committee vide resolution dated 18.05.2005 High Power
Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary
Page 7 of
11.
be constituted to examine the retrenchment case of work charge
employees Rengali irrigation Project and Rengali Multipurpose project
who belong to partially submerged category.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this point referred to the
letter dated 23.12.2011 written by the Principle Secretary to Department
of Water Resources Govt. of Odisha to the EIC, WR Odisha. The said
letter reveals that the proposal was sent to the Government by the EIC
regarding re-engagement of the retrenchment worker. By virtue of the
aforesaid letter, the principal secretary has communicated that after
careful consideration of the proposal submitted on 05.02.2010 and with
the concurrence of the Finance Department vide letter dated
22.10.2008, the Govt. of Odisha in the Water Resources Department
has been pleased to re-engage eligible 215 numbers of retrenched work
charge employees of R.I.P., Samal & R.D.P., Rengali belonging to
partly submerged category subject to the conditions mentioned in the
said letter.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that subject
to the conditions imposed vide letter dated 23.12.2011 being complied
by the petitioners and similar situated other persons, their services were
regularised in the year 2012 and the petitioners were again taken back
to the work charged establishment.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture contended that
while the petitioners were working in the work charged establishment
after their re-engagement, one of the employee namely Madan Chandra
Nayak approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6277 of 2014 along
with other similarly situated person. A division bench of this Court
while considering the aforesaid batch of writ application, disposed of
the said batch of writ application vide the judgment dated 19.04.2022,
and has arrived at a conclusion that the impugned orders denying the
financial benefit to the petitioners for the disengagement period on the
Page 8 of
11.
ground of 'no work no pay' is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, such
impugned orders quashed by the Division Bench in the judgment
referred to hereinabove. Further the Opposite Parties were directed to
pay the financial benefit to the petitioners for the period of
disengagement till their re-engagement in service. Taking into
consideration the benefits which have been extended in favour of the
similarly situated employees. The judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in Madan Chandra Nayak was arrayed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of the State-Opposite Parties.
On perusal of the material annexed to the writ application it appears that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 was pleased to
dismiss the SLP preferred by the State bearing Civil Appeal No.16485-
16487 of 2023 (Principal Secretary to Govt. of Odisha and others vs.
Madan Chandra Nayak). In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that the petitioners be extended with similar
benefit as has been extended in the case of abovenamed Madan Chandra
Nayak who stands in similar footing in the present petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the
prayer made in the present writ application. He further contended that
after considering the case of the present petitioners, the Opposite Parties
have passed the impugned order under Annexure-7 to the writ
application. He further contended that the under Annexure-7 which has
been assailed in the present writ applications is a speaking and reasoned
order wherein the Opposite parties have elaborately discussed the
ground on which the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same
should be dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a
careful examination of their submissions, further taking into
Page 9 of
11.
consideration the documents annexed to the writ application and upon
careful scrutiny of the impugned rejection order under Annexure-7, this
Court found that the only question that requires adjudication in the
present writ application is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to
wages/remuneration during the period for which they were disengaged
from service in the present case, i.e. from the year 2002 and 2003. On a
careful analysis of the judgment of this Court by the Division Bench in
Madan Chandra Nayak's case (supra), this Court found that the facts of
that case are almost identical to the facts of the present case. In Madan
Chandra Nayak's case (supra) a Division Bench had already taken a
view that the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be applied to the
facts of a case which is similar to the one involved in the present case.
Eventually, the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as has been discussed
hereinabove. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of
this Court in Madan Chandra Nayak's case (supra) has attained finality.
11. Moreover, on a careful scrutiny of the impugned rejection order
under Annexure-7, it is observed that the representation of the
petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the Law Department of
Govt. of Odisha has given an opinion to challenge the judgment of this
Court in Madan Chandra Nayak's Case by filling an SLP before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Although the State Govt. filed the SLP, as
opined by the Law Department, however, the same has been dismissed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per order dated 05.12.2024.
12. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual aspect as well as
the law applicable to the case of the present petitioner, this Court is of
the considered view that the cases of the present petitioner were
squarely covered by the ratio laid down in Madan Chandra Nayak's
case (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court, which was eventuality
upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such view of the matter the
Page 10 of
11.
impugned rejection order under Annexure-7 are unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the same are hereby quashed. Further, the matter is
remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Engineer in Chief Water
Resources Department to consider the matter afresh by taking into
consideration the ratio laid down by this Court in Madan Chandra
Nayak's case (supra). Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to
approach the Opposite party No.2 within a period of two weeks along
with a copy of today's order. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party
No.2 shall consider and grievance of the present petitioners within eight
weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today's order. It is
further made clear that the grievance of the petitioners shall be
redressed of passing a speaking and reasoned order and by taking into
consideration the judgment referred to hereinabove as well as the
judgment in Jugal Kishore Nayak's case. Taking into consideration the
fact that in an identical case of an employee namely Jugal Kishore
Nayak, the order has already been implemented and the benefits have
already been disbursed. Further directed that any decision taken by the
Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the petitioner within a period
ten days from the date of taking such decision.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Page 11 of
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 04-Mar-2025 18:12:39
