Orissa High Court
Management Of Sanjay vs State Of Orissa And on 24 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.152 of 2018
Management of Sanjay ... Appellant(s)
Memorial Institute of
Technology
Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa and ... Respondent (s)
others Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA
(for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2)
Mr. B. K. Mohanty, Advocate
(for Respondent No.3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 24.06.2025
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard Mr. L. Samantaray, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State-respondent Nos.1 & 2
and Mr. Bijaya Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.
From the impugned judgment and order dated
14.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.9492 of 2010, two issues have been prominently
highlighted by the learned Single Judge which have
quoted in paragraph-8. While adjudicating the
maintainability of the Writ Petition, the learned Single
Judge has taken into account various decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the appellant is
amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court being "State" as
per Article 12 of the Constitution.
Mr. Samantray, learned counsel for the appellant
has filed two orders of this Court. One is by the Division
Bench in O.J.C. No.4482 of 1999 and another by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2016, where a
sweeping observation has been made that the appellant's
institution is not the State within the meaning and ambit
of Article 12 of the Constitution and, as such, the Writ
Petition is not maintainable. The orders are taken on
record.
However, we find that no reasons have been
assigned in the aforesaid two orders on holding that the
appellant's institution is not amenable to the writ
jurisdiction. Though at the outset, Mr. Samantray, learned
counsel made such a submission but on perusal of the
grounds taken in the Writ Appeal, we find that there is no
challenge to the findings of the learned Single Judge
regarding the jurisdiction of the writ as the appellant is
not State under article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Hence the only point remains to be decided in this Writ
Appeal is whether the respondent No.3 is entitled to the
arrears of salary under the revised scale of pay as per
U.G.C. or A.I.C.T.E. Guidelines.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has filed an
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated
10.11.2022 passed in W.A. No.22 of 2019 in which the
respondent No.3 was the appellant and his prayer for
payment of gratuity was allowed. The order is taken on
record.
After hearing the learned counsel for the respective
parties, the hearing is closed and judgment is reserved.
Learned counsel for the respective parties is at
liberty to file their written notes of submission along with
relied upon judgments by 30th June, 2025.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
Swarna/Ashok ( S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-Jun-2025 11:19:58
