State Of Odisha vs Shradhanjali Dash
2025 Latest Caselaw 5377 Ori

Orissa High Court

State Of Odisha vs Shradhanjali Dash on 26 March, 2025

Bench: S.K. Sahoo, M.S. Raman

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          W.A No.1204 of 2022

       1. State of Odisha,
       represented through
       Principal Secretary to
       Government of Odisha,
       Department of Water
       Resources

       2. The Engineer-in-Chief,
       Odisha, Water Resources,
       Secha Sadan

       3. The Chief Engineer and
       Basin Manager,
       Brahmani Left Basin,
       Samal

       4. The Executive Engineer,
       Rengali Dam Division,      .....           Appellants

                                                  Represented By
                                                  Mr. Jateswar Nayak
                                                  Addl. Govt. Advocate

                                   -versus-

       Shradhanjali Dash             .....        Respondent

Represented By Mr. Sadasiva Patra Advocate

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Order No. ORDER 26.03.2025

07. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

As per order dated 03.03.2025, Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the letter dated 17.03.2025 of the Superintendent Engineer, Rengali Dam Division in Court today wherein it has been stated that Mahendra Prasad Nayak, Nalini Dash and Dillip Kumar Nayak have been granted the benefits extended to Kanchanbala Satapathy. The aforesaid letter is taken on record.

This writ appeal has been filed by the State of Odisha and others challenging the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in W.P.(C) OAC No.690 of 2013.

The Respondent Shradhanjali Dash filed O.A. No.690 of 2013 before the Odisha State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack to quash the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government holding that the prayer of the Respondent to allow the benefit of Post Graduate Teacher to the post with effect from the date of her joining, i.e., 27.08.1984 cannot be considered being devoid of merits. A further prayer has been made in the Original Application for a direction to the Appellants to allow the Respondent the benefits of pay scale of Post Graduate teacher with effect from 27.08.1984 along with its subsequent revised versions and with a further direction to allow the benefits of pay scale attached to the post of Junior Lecturer with effect from 01.07.1991 and its subsequent revised versions. After the matter was transferred to this Court, W.P.(OAC) No.690 of 2013 was registered. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, has been pleased to hold that the rejection of the claim of the Respondent was on the ground that the Respondent approached the Tribunal at a belated stage. It was further held that since the Respondent stands on the same footing like Kanchanbala

Satapathy, the authority should have extended such benefit to the Respondent. It was further held that the approach of the Respondent to the Tribunal at a belated stage is not a ground not to extend the benefit to her as the same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the order dated 05.11.2012 under Anexure-8 to the writ petition was quashed and the Appellants were directed to pay the benefits to the Respondent at par with said Kanchanbala Satapathy in terms of the direction given by the Tribunal in the case of Kanchanbala Satapathy as expeditiously as possible.

When the matter was taken up on 03.03.2025, the learned counsel for the State placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others -Vs.- Arvind Kumar Srivastava & others reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347 and submitted that the respondent in this writ appeal was a fence sitter and approached the Tribunal after Kanchanbala Satapathy got the relief from the Government after her Original Application was allowed and the writ petition filed by the State was dismissed so also the SLP preferred by the State was dismissed.

On 03.03.2025, Mr. Sadasiva Patra, learned counsel for the Respondent produced some orders passed in the case of Mahendra Prasad Nayak in O.A. No.136(C) of 2013 disposed of on 16.11.2016 so also Nalini Dash in O.A. No.138(C) of 2013 disposed of on 27.04.2017 and submitted that those persons got the benefit like Kanchanbala Satpathy and the Respondent is similarly situated. Learned counsel for the State was also asked to verify as to whether the State of Odisha challenged the aforesaid orders passed in the cases of Mahendra Prasad Nayak so also Nalini Dash before this Court in any writ petition or not and further to obtain instruction as to whether the case of similarly situated persons are sub-judiced or disposed of by this Court or not. Accordingly, the written instruction from the Superintendent Engineer, Rengali Dam Division has been

produced by the learned counsel for the State today, which shows that Mahendra Prasad Nayak, Nalini Dash and Dillip Kumar Nayak have got the benefits extended to Kanchanbala Satapathy.

Thus, it is clear that four persons have already got the benefits. When it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent is similarly situated like those four persons, who have already got the reliefs, merely on the ground of belated approach, the relief cannot be denied to the present respondent. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent first approached the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.781(C) of 2010, which was disposed of on 26.03.2010 with a direction to the Respondent no.1 to consider the representation. In terms of such order, the representation was disposed of vide order dated 05.11.2012 and the benefit of P.G. Teacher post was denied to the petitioner which was challenged in O.A. No.690(C) of 2013 before the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack which was transferred to this Court and W.P.(OAC) No.690 of 2013 was registered, in which the impugned order was passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are any laches on the part of the Respondent or she was a fence sitter. After going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that there is no infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned order.

In the case of Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. -Vrs.- Workmen of Narendra & Company, reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 340, it has been observed as follows:

"5......Be that as it may, in an intra-Court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order

passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief."

In the case of Wander Ltd. -Vrs.- Antox India (P) Ltd., reported in 1990 Supp. SCC 727, following observation has been made:

"14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate Court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion."

In the case of Anindita Mohanty -Vrs.- The Senior Regional Manager, H.P. Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar reported in 2020 (II) ILR-CUT 398, this Court had the occasion to examine the scope of intra-Court appeal and observed as follows:

"11......Let us first examine the power of the Division Bench while entertaining a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment/order of the Single Judge. This writ appeal has been nomenclatured as an application under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, 1992. Letters Patent of the

Patna High Court has been made applicable to this Court by virtue of Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Letters Patent Appeal is an intra-Court appeal where under the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as vested in the Single Bench. (Ref: (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 52, Baddula Lakshmaiah - Vrs.- Shri Anjaneya Swami Temple). The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal should not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge of the Court unless it is shown to be based on no evidence, perverse, palpably unreasonable or inconsistent with any particular position in law. This scope of interference is within a narrow compass. Appellate jurisdiction under Letters Patent is really a corrective jurisdiction and it is used rarely only to correct errors, if any made."

In the case of B. Venkatamuni -Vrs.- C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 449, it is held that in an intra-Court appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to reappraise both questions of fact and law, but entertainment of a Letters Patent Appeal is discretionary and normally the Division Bench would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived at by the Single Judge. Even a Court of first appeal which is the final Court of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount of restraint.

Thus a writ appeal is an appeal on principle where the legality and validity of the judgment and/or order of the Single Judge is tested and it can be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against established or settled principle of law. If two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical, has been adopted by a Single Judge, the other view, howsoever appealing may be to the Division Bench; it is the view adopted by the Single Judge, which would, normally be allowed to prevail. If the discretion has been exercised by the Single Judge in good faith and after giving due weight to relevant matters and without

being swayed away by irrelevant matters and if two views are possible on the question, then also the Division Bench in writ appeal should not interfere, even though it would have exercised its discretion in a different manner, were the case come initially before it. The exercise of discretion by the Single Judge should manifestly be wrong which would then give scope of interference to the Division Bench.

After carefully going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that there is no infirmity, perversity or illegality in it. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ appeal does not warrant interference in the decision of the learned Single Judge in the teeth of aforesaid enunciation of law. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

Needless to say that the time specified in the impugned order passed in the writ petition to pay the benefits to the Respondent within a period of four months from the date of communication of that order is already over. However, since the writ appeal was filed in 2022 and it is disposed of today, it is expected that the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be complied forthwith.

(S.K. Sahoo) Judge

(M.S. Raman) Judge Basu

Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 29-Mar-2025 06:12:29