Pabani Bhol vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 6209 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pabani Bhol vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 24 June, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            WP(C) No.16387 of 2025
            Pabani Bhol                  .....       Petitioner
                                                               Represented By Adv. -
                                                               Sadasiva Patra (1)

                                            -versus-
            1) State Of Odisha                         .....        Opposite Parties
            2) Engineer-in-chief, W.r., Odisha                  Represented By Adv. -
            3) Chief Engineer And Basin Manager,                Mr.D.N.Lenka, AGA
            Baitarani, Subarnarekha And
            Budhabalanga Basin, Laxmiposi
            4) Executive Engineer, Stones And
            Mechanical Division, Subarnarekha
            Irrigation Project, Laxmiposi

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA
                                   ORDER

24.06.2025 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:

"Under the facts and circumstances stated above, the Petitioner therefore prays that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Writ(s) directing the Opposite Parties to allow the benefits in compliance to order dated 18.11.1999 in O.A.No.2896 © of 1999 under annexure-1 with terms and conditions in view of order dated 27.07.2021 CONTC (CPC) No.270 of 2020 and batch under Annexure-4 in favour of the late husband

of the Petitioner and to extend the family pension to her within a stipulated time within admissible interest.

And pass any order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper;"

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the present Petitioner is the widow of a retired Government employee, who had earlier approached the learned Tribunal for regularisation of his service. Learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the husband of the Petitioner bearing O.A.No.2896(C) of 1999. As per the final order passed by the learned Tribunal , a direction was given to the State authority to regularise the services of the employees who have completed five years of service in Work Charged establishment and the entire period of service in the Work Charged establishment shall be taken into account for grant of pension and pensionary benefit.

5. The order passed by the learned Tribunal initially sought to be reviewed by the State-Opposite Parties. The Review Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the State-Opposite Parties approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7753 of 2016. A Division bench of this Court on 03.01.2019 dismissed the said Writ Petition thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

6. After disposal of the Writ Petition by the Division bench of this Court the Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition originally before the Tribunal, which was eventually transferred to this Court and reregistered as CONTC(CPC) No.306 of 2020. During the pendency of the aforesaid Contempt Petition, the State Opposite Parties moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connected batch of Writ Petitions. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the said SLP and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal i.e. for regularisation of services of Work Charged employees including the present Petitioner.

7. The order passed by the learned Tribunal, although confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was not implemented by the State-Opposite Parties. A Division bench of this Court while deciding a batch of contempt petition passed an order on 27.07.2021 under Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to the order passed under Annexure-4 contended before this Court that after considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Contemnor-Opposite Parties granted another opportunity to implement the order dated 16.11.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.2559(C) of 1999 and the batch of connected matters by 31.08.2021 failing which it was directed that the salary of the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Odisha and the Engineer-in-Chief Irrigation, Odisha shall be stopped till the order is implemented.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after disposal of the Contempt Petition by a common order dated 27.07.2021, the Opposite Parties implemented the order in respect of the Petitioners in connection with the connected batch matters vide order dated 24.08.2021 under Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition. He further submitted that although similar orders were passed in the cases of the Petitioner, however the same was in different Original Application preferred by the Petitioner and the same was not taken into consideration by the State- Opposite Parties, as a result of which the husband of the

Petitioner was left out from the batch of Petitioners, who were extended with the benefit by the State-Opposite Parties pursuant to the order passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. Being aggrieved by such action of the Opposite Parties, the husband of the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court once again by filing W.P.(C) No.29527 of 2021. Again a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.10.2021 disposed of the said Writ Petition by reiterating that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the common order/judgment dated 27.07.2021 passed in CONTC No.270 of 2020 and batch of similar other application with only modification that the Petitioner's Original Application was included in the said list of Petitions before this Court. After disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the husband of the Petitioner once again approached the Opposite Parties for implementation of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the order passed by this Court in a subsequent Writ Petition dated 08.10.2021 under Annexure-7 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State-Opposite Parties by filing SLP Diary No.23819 of 2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.07.2023 dismissed the SLP with the following observation:

"3. The Petitioner-State is cautioned not to approach this Court in matters that are covered and decided against it. "

11. After dismissal of the SLP preferred by the State-Opposite Parties, the Petitioner once again approached the Principal

Secretary, Water Resources department by filing a representation dated 29.09.2024 under Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition.

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that such representation was filed by the Petitioner, who is the wife of the ex-Government employee and further clarified that during pendency of the application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the husband of the Petitioner passed away on 17.10.2021. Despite this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court having given direction to pay the retiral dues as well as pension and pensionary dues to the husband of the Petitioner, the same has not been paid as of now. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this stage alleged that the conduct of the Opposite Parties are in violation of the direction of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court as they are liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Court's Act.

13. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, on perusal of the pleadings made in the Writ Petition and on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition, it appears that the Petitioner has already approached Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation under Annexure-10. In such view of the matter also submitted that he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party no.1 to redress the grievance of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further keeping in view the fact that similarly situated employees have been extended with such benefit.

14. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, after careful examination of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition further keeping in view the background facts of the present Writ Petition, this court is of the considered view that the Petitioner stands in similar footing with the persons, who have already been extended with similar benefit. It is a fact that the husband of the Petitioner has filed a separate Original Application and his name has been left out in which similar benefit has been extended to other employees. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the husband of the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit at par with the persons namely Kashidev Maharana & others, who has been extended with such benefit.

15. Accordingly, the Writ petition is being disposed of by directing the Opposite Party no.1 to take necessary steps for sanction and disbursal of the dues of the husband of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the Petitioner is entitled to the interest at the applicable rate for the delay that was caused by the Opposite Parties in disbursing the retiral dues as is due and admissible to the late husband of the Petitioner and such interest be calculated and paid to the Petitioner within the aforesaid time. It is further made clear that in the event the direction given by this Court is not implemented, it is open to the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing a contempt Petition. In such eventuality, this Court shall call upon the Opposite Party no.1 as to why he shall not be proceeded under the Contempt of Court's Act for wilful and deliberate violation of this Court's order and accordingly necessary

proceeding shall be initiated against the Opposite Party No.1.

With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS

Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Jun-2025 12:26:32