Orissa High Court
Debaraj Harichandan vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 20 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7638 of 2025
Debaraj Harichandan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engr In Chief, Water Resources Represented By Adv. -
3) Chief Engr, Minor Irrigation, Bbsr Ms. B.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
4) Addl. Chief Engr, Central Minor
Irrigation Circle Mr.S. K.Patra, Standing
5) Supdt. Engr, Mi Div., Khurda Counsel for A.G.,
6) Accountant General(a And E) , Odisha
Bbsr
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.03.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as counsel for
the State-Opposite Parties & Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing
Counsel for Principal Accountant General for AG, Odisha.
3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to
Opposite Parties to give all benefit to him against the post of
Progress Recorder as per Orissa Government Service Rules and
regularize his service by calculating five years of continuous service
as work charged employee and give him all service benefits on that
basis including pensionary benefit immediately within a stipulated
period.
4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended
that similar benefit has been extended to one Narusu Pradhan and
Sarbeswar Bhujabal. As such the Petitioner having stood in similar
footing, he is entitled to grant all the benefits.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State
contended that the Petitioner has already retired from service and he
was working as Progress Recorder. He further contended that the
claim of the Petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.
6. It is contended that one Narusu Pradhan, a similar
circumstanced person like the Petitioner had filed O.A.No.1189(C)
of 2006 praying for retiral benefits. The Tribunal allowed the retiral
pensionary benefits in his favour vide order dated 11.06.2009, which
was challenged by the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of
2010. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 19.12.2011 and
confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter against the
order passed by this Court, the State has preferred SLP in Civil
Appeal No.22498 of 2012, the same was also dismissed on
07.01.2013. Recently, similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.754 of 2020, vide order dated
30.10.2022; State of Odisha vrs. Sarbeswar Bhujabal confirming
the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7380 of 2019 as well as
the Tribunal in O.A. No.606 of 2015 vide Annesxure-5.
7. In that view of the matter, the relief claimed by the Petitioner
is fully covered by the judgment of the Tribunal passed in the case of
Narusu Pradhan and Sarbeswar Bhujabal, which has been confirmed
by this Court as well as the apex Court. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, the Petitioner is directed to approach the
Opposite Party No.1 by filing a fresh representation within two
weeks. In the event such a representation is filed, the same shall be
considered in accordance with law. Further, the Opposite Party No.1
shall do well to examine whether the Petitioner's case is covered by
the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Narusu Pradhan and
Sarbeswar Bhujabal, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In the event, the authority comes to the conclusion
that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief as has been claimed by him
then the benefit extended in favour of Narusu Pradhan and
Sarbeswar Bhujabal be also extended in favour of the Petitioner
within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such a decision.
8. Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of three
months.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
