State Of Odisha & Others vs Ananda Chandra Das
2025 Latest Caselaw 1701 Ori

Orissa High Court

State Of Odisha & Others vs Ananda Chandra Das on 25 July, 2025

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.A. No.2879 of 2024

     (Arising out of W.P.(C) No.38450 of 2023 disposed of by
                     order dated 13.02.2024)

State of Odisha & others                               ....               Appellants
                                     -Versus-

Ananda Chandra Das                                     ....             Respondent

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants         : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty,
                         Additional Government Advocate


For Respondent : Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Advocate with
                 Mr. Krishna Chandra Sahu
CORAM:

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                       AND
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

                               JUDGMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decided on: 25.07.2025

PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

I.A. No. 7554 of 2024

1. This appeal has been preferred after brooking a delay of 214 days along with an application for its condoning, which is supported by an affidavit.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that in a matter a Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the State appeal and that was carried in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).22605 of 2020 and the Apex Court having altered the dismissal, allowed the SLP, remanded the matter for fresh consideration with the observation that matter should be heard on merits. He also submits that the State is only a legal entity which works with the officials as its limbs and this working is on stage-wise basis and at times delay is unintentionally caused when papers move from one table to another or from one office to another. He also points out that there is a whole lot of process till the decision is taken at the pinnacle. Lastly, he adds that there are some arguable points in the main matter itself. So arguing he seeks for allowing of the application and condoning of the delay.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent with equal vehemence resists the application submitting that delay is too long and that the explanation offered is too frugal and therefore there is absolutely no justification for favouring the application. He also adds that routinely in matters like this delay cannot be condoned State being a model litigant.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the paper books more focusing on the application seeking condonation of delay and having regard to totality of

circumstances, in which the appeal is preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that rejecting application of the kind would cause a great injustice to the State, which functions in the public interest. The Sages of Law have told that condonation of delay would not add merits to the case of appellant to the disadvantage of others. After all, what would happen is, the main matter would be heard on merits with full opportunity to both the sides.

In the above circumstances, this application is favoured and delay of 214 days brooked in filing the appeal is condoned. The I.A. is disposed of.

5. The appellant-State calls in question the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.38450 of 2023 whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the order impugned in the petition dated 26.10.2023, passed by the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his coverage under the provisions of the OCS (Pension) Rules,1992 prior to its amendment by Notification No.44451/F dated 17.09.2025 and General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules, 1938. It was further directed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner's case has to be considered by the opposite party-authority in the light of the decision rendered by the State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Birenmitra Swain v. State of Odisha and others: O.A. No.1106(C) of 2015 disposed of on 03.04.2019.

6. In making the representation that was rejected, the petitioner claimed the benefit for him to be covered under the

OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules, 1938 as the said benefit was extended to Sri Birenmitra Swain being deceased represented by his legal heir- wife, Smt. Usharani Swain by the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.1106 (C) of 2015. On being challenged by State the said order of the OAT was confirmed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.29224 of 2020. SLP (C) No.12835 of 2022 filed against the order of the High Court was dismissed by the apex Court vide order dated 01.08.2022 on the ground of delay in filing the SLP.

7. In filing the writ appeal it is not disputed by the appellant that the order passed in Sri Birenmitra Swain has been implemented after dismissal of the SLP and contempt petition was filed for non-compliance of the orders of this Court in the writ petition. The State has also directed for opening of GPF Accounts and deduction of subscriptions in favour of remaining 11 numbers of the petitioners in CONTC No.1478 of 2021 arising out of 1106 (C) No.2015 basing on the GPF (Odisha) Rules, 1938 and the subsequent instruction/orders issued by the Government in this regard.

It is argued with vehemence by Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State that in the case of State of Odisha and others v. Dr. Chittaranjan Meher and others, [SLP (C) Diary No.11892 of 2023] disposed of vide order dated 16.04.2024, the apex Court had observed that the order in the SLP was passed in the peculiar facts and

circumstances and shall not be treated as precedent. Therefore, it is submitted that the present writ appeal should be heard afresh by this Court and it would be open for the appellant to argue the matter touching the merits.

8. The learned counsel, Mr. Samantaray appearing for the respondent refers to order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15190 of 2024 disposed of by order dated 07.03.2025 (State of Odisha and others v. Bhabagrahi Patri) to submit that it is not open for the appellant to argue the matter afresh as the writ appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in State of Orissa v. Dr. Chittaranjan Meher (supra) read with the order passed in Bhabagrahi Patri (supra). He further relies on the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the apex Court in State of Odisha and others v. Priyambada Pattanaik and another to contend that in the same set of facts and circumstances arising out of appeal by State of Odisha, the writ appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the apex Court in Dr. Chittaranjan Meher (supra).

9. For convenience of reference we reproduce the orders in Bhabagrahi Patri (supra) and Priyambada Pattanaik (supra). Order in Bhabagrahi Patri (supra):

"1) Learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated before us that the issue as involved in the present case has been set at rest by this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. V. Dr. Chittaranjan Meher & Ors. (SLP (C) Diary No.11892 of 2023) vide order dated 16.04.2024. The

relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under:

"After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and in the peculiar facts of the case(s), in which the appointments were made on contract basis after following the due process of law prevalent on the date of selection, as such, we are not inclined to entertain these Special Leave Petitions. However, for the purpose of clarity and compiling the directions in all other cases and to apply the directions mutatis mutandis in all the case, we dispose of these Special Leave Petitions with following order:-

1. The respondents who were appointed on contractual basis shall be treated as regularized from the date of their initial appointment, including regular increments and be extended all benefits notionally till the date of orders of their regularization, and be extended the benefit of fixation of pay and all other consequential benefits.

2. The actual benefit of regularization shall entail from the date of their orders of regularization.

3. The State Government is directed to complete such exercise, circulating the benefits of the individual employees and shall extended the same now within a period of 90 days from the date of this order to them or their legal representatives.

4. This order passed is in the peculiar facts and circumstances, however, it shall not be treated as a precedent.

5. In view of the above, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of."

2) As conceded before us, the present special leave petition may be treated as disposed of in the above terms. Accordingly and in the same terms, the present special leave petition stands disposed of.

3) Pending application (s), if any, shall be disposed of."

Order in Priyambada Pattanaik (supra):

"This case here is whether respondents are liable to be covered under the old pension scheme or the new pension scheme. The matter stands covered by a decision of this Court in the case of "State of Odisha & Ors. V. Dr. Chittaranjan Meher & Ors (Diary No.11802/23).

Although in the aforesaid order, it is stated that this order passed is in the peculiar facts and circumstances, however, it shall not be treated as a precedent, but since we find the same set of facts and circumstances arising out of the same State, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the same terms and conditions.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

10. Learned counsel for the respondents also refers to the judgment dated 02.07.2025 passed by this Bench in WA No.1323 of 2023 (State of Odisha and others v. Chhabindra Kumar Samal). By the said judgment writ appeal was dismissed following the judgment of the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.(s)13077 of 2020 (State of Odisha and others v. Amit Kumar Mishra and others), to contend that as held in Chhabindra Kumar Samal, after the issues are set at rest by the apex Court, this Court should not further examine the issue by reopening the settled position of law as far as the present case and the similar cases are concerned.

11. We have reproduced Bhabagrahi Patri (supra) which in turn quotes with approval the order passed in Dr. Chittaranjan Meher (supra). We also note that in Priyambada Pattanaik (supra) it has been held that since it is found that "the same

set of facts and circumstances arising out of the same State", Dr. Chittaranjan Meher has to be followed.

In view of the above discussions in our considered opinion, the directions issued in Birenmitra Swain (supra) is also applicable to this case as held by the learned Single Judge.

For the reasons indicated above and the discussions made, the writ appeal fails. The order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within three months forthwith. Now costs made easy.

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 25thJuly, 2025/Dutta/Gs