Orissa High Court
Sukanti Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 6 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31665 of 2024
Sukanti Mishra .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Basudev Barik, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Manas Ranjan Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 06.01.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well
as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the following prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, and
issue notice to the opp parties as to why the case shall
not be allowed and after hearing parties may kindly be
directed to the opp parties to brought over the service of
husband of the petitioner in work charged
establishment w.e.f 02.09.1993 at par with partly
affected persons instead of 06.09.2003 with all
consequential benefits within a time framed by the
Hon'ble Court as the petitioner is fully displaced
person.
And further to direct the opp parties to bring the
service of husband of the petitioner in work charged
establishment w.e.f 02.09.1993 at par with partly
affected person instead of 06.09.2003 with
consequential benefits in the light of the direction of
this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court of
India in stipulated time.
And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions
as this Hon'ble Court would be deem fit and proper as
facts and circumstances of the case.
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall as
in duty bound ever pay."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
earlier 39 persons approached the Tribunal to bring over
them to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993
instead of 06.09.2003. The Tribunal after hearing the
applicants in O.A. No.1117(C) of 2011 directed the authorities
to bring over the applicants to the work charged
establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 at par with partly affected
persons instead of 06.09.2003. The order of the Tribunal was
assailed before this Court by the State-Opposite Parties by
filing W.P.(C) No.14980 of 2018 which was disposed of by a
Division Bench of this Court on 11.07.2022 affirming the
order of the Tribunal and further directing the Opposite
Parties to bring over the applicants to the work charged
establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 at par with partly affected
persons.
5. It is further stated that such judgment of the Division
Bench was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
however, the SLP filed by the State bearing SLP (Civil) Diary
No.12880 of 2023 has been dismissed on 03.07.2023 on the
ground of delay. Thus, the judgment passed by this Court as
well as the Tribunal has attained finality. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner at this juncture further contented that the
Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the persons who
are the applicants before the Tribunal and judgment in the
said case has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court
as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner is also entitled to be extended with such benefits
that have been given to one Pramod Chandra Das and others
who were the applicants before the Tribunal. Accordingly,
she has approached this Court by filing the present writ
application for a direction to the Opposite Parties to treat the
husband of the Petitioner at par with the above named
Pramod Chandra Das, the Petitioner is W.P.(C) No.14980 of
2018.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand
contended that the Petitioner has approached this Court
directly without approaching the Departmental Authorities.
He further contended that in the event the Petitioner
approaches the Opposite Parties by filing a detailed
representation along with a copy of the order passed by the
Tribunal as well as by a Division Bench of this Court and the
Opposite Parties to consider the same strictly in accordance
with law, then he will have no objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful
examination of the background facts of the present case as
well as keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application
at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner
to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a fresh and
detailed representation along with all supporting documents
as well as the judgments referred to hereinabove. In the
event, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the
case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down in
Pramod Chandra Das's case (supra) and eventually, if the
Opposite Party No.2 comes to a conclusion that the husband
of the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with Shri Pramod
Chandra Das, then similar benefits be extended to the
Petitioner as has been granted to the above named Pramod
Chandra Das and others. Without taking a ground that the
husband of the Petitioner was not an applicant before the
Tribunal along with the above named Pramod Chandra Das.
The aforesaid exercise be concluded within a period of two
months from the date of communication of a certified copy of
this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to
the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
Sumitra
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
