Orissa High Court
Gopal Chandra Sahu vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 25 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.16801 of 2025
Gopal Chandra Sahu ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer In Chief,bbsr Represented By Adv. -
3) Chief Engineer,minor Irrigation,bbsr Ms. B.Sahu, A.G.A.
4) Addl. Chief Engineer,eastern Minor
Irrigation Circle,keonjhar
5) Superintending Engineer,minor
Irrigation Division,balasore
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 25.06.2025
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 for the State.
3. The present writ application has been filed with the following
prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule Nisi to
the Opposite Parties to show cause as to
i) why the impugned order dated 24.04.2025
communicated vide Memo No.11249 dated 24.04.2025
under Annexure-9 in the facts and circumstances of the
case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to
be set aside; and
ii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to extend
the financial benefit in favor of the Petitioner with Grade
Pay of Rs.1650/- w.e.f. 01.03.2009 within a stipulated
time; and
iii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to
sanction and disburse the differential salary on such
extension of the benefit w.e.f. 01.03.2009 within a
stipulated time;
And if the Opp.Parties do not show cause then the Rule
be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any
other order as deem fit be passed."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
relief sought for in the present writ application has been considered
by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3261(C) of 2014
and the same was allowed by a common order dated 25.04.2017
along with other batch of cases. Thereafter the State approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24361 of 2017. A Division bench of this
Court by order dated 18th May, 2018 dismissed the writ application
confirming the order passed by the learned Orissa Administrative
Tribunal. Thereafter the State approached the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s)
11066 of 2020 along with batch of SLPs. By order dated 13 th July,
2020 the SLP preferred by the State against the order as discussed
above was dismissed. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in the
Original Application has attained its finality and the principle of law
decided therein is binding so far as similarly situated employees are
concerned. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that he has submitted a representation on 03.11.2023
claiming similar benefit as has been given to similarly situated
persons.
5. However, the representation dated 03.11.2023 filed by the
Petitioner has been rejected by the authority without considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court
simply on the ground that the Petitioner was not a party to the said
round of litigation wherein the order of the Tribunal has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereas Barada Prasad
Rath, similarly situated has been granted the benefit vide Annexure-
10.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand
submits that the representation of the Petitioner has been duly
considered and the same has been rejected by order dated 24.04.2025
by the authority. She further submits that the Petitioner is not entitled
to the benefit claimed by him and as such the writ application is
liable to be dismissed.
7. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties
and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well
as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Court, the present writ application is being disposed of at the stage of
admission by setting aside the order dated 24.04.2025. Further the
Opposite Party No.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the
Petitioner keeping in view the judgment of the learned Tribunal as
well as this Court which was ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. It is made clear that the ratio decided in the above
referred case is applicable to all similarly placed employees. Merely
because, the Petitioner is not a party to the said litigation his claim
cannot be denied. Hence the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to
consider the case of the Petitioner expeditiously within a period of
two months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order. Further, the decision so taken in the case of the Petitioner shall
be communicated to him within a period of two weeks from the date
of passing such order.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
