Orissa High Court
Minati Samal vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.12636 of 2025
Minati Samal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Basudev Barik
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Suryakanta Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.05.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner,
who happens to be the daughter of Late Lalita Mohanty, with the
following prayer :
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to admit the writ
application, and issue notice to the opp. parties as
to why the case shall not be allowed and after
hearing parties may kindly be directed to the opp.
parties to brought over the service of father of the
petitioner in work charged establishment w.e.f
02.09.1993 at par with partly affected persons
instead of 06.09.2003 with all consequential
benefits within a time framed by the Hon'ble Court
as the petitioner is fully displaced person.
And further to direct the opp. parties to bring
the service of husband of the father of the petitioner
in work charged establishment w.e.f 02.09.1993 at
par with partly affected person instead of
06.09.2003 with consequential benefits in the light
of the direction of this Hon'ble Court as well as
Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Pramod Ch.
Das Vrs. State of odisha and Batch in stipulated
time.
And pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon ble Court would be
deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of
the case."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
earlier 39 persons approached the Tribunal to bring over them to
the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 instead of
06.09.2003. The Tribunal after hearing the applicants in O.A.
No.1117(C) of 2011 directed the authorities to bring over the
applicants to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 at
par with partly affected persons instead of 06.09.2003. The order
of the Tribunal was assailed before this Court by the State-
Opposite Parties by filing W.P.(C) No.14980 of 2018 which was
disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.07.2022
affirming the order of the Tribunal and further directing the
Opposite Parties to bring over the applicants to the work charged
establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993 at par with partly affected persons.
5. It is further stated that such judgment of the Division Bench
was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the SLP
filed by the State bearing SLP (Civil) Diary No.12880 of 2023 has
been dismissed on 03.07.2023 on the ground of delay. Thus, the
judgment passed by this Court as well as the Tribunal has attained
finality. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture further
contented that father of the Petitioner stands in a similar footing
with the persons who are the applicants before the Tribunal and
judgment in the said case has been upheld by a Division Bench of
this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner, who happens to be the daughter of Late Lalit Mohanty,
is also entitled to be extended with such benefits that have been
given to one Pramod Chandra Das and others who were the
applicants before the Tribunal. Accordingly, he has approached
this Court by filing the present writ application for a direction to
the Opposite Parties to treat the Petitioner at par with the above
named Pramod Chandra Das, the Petitioner is W.P.(C) No.14980
of 2018.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand
contended that the Petitioner has approached this Court directly
without approaching the Departmental Authorities. He further
contended that in the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite
Parties by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of the
order passed by the Tribunal as well as by a Division Bench of this
Court and the Opposite Parties to consider the same strictly in
accordance with law, then he will have no objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination
of the background facts of the present case as well as keeping in
view the limited nature of the grievance, this Court deems it proper
to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by
granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party
No.2 by filing a fresh and detailed representation along with all
supporting documents as well as the judgments referred to
hereinabove. In the event, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to
consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down
in Pramod Chandra Das's case (supra) and eventually, if the
Opposite Party No.2 comes to a conclusion that the father of
Petitioner stands in a similar footing with Shri Pramod Chandra
Das, then similar benefits be extended to the Petitioner as has been
granted to the above named Pramod Chandra Das and others
without taking a ground that the father of the Petitioner was not an
applicant before the Tribunal along with the above named Pramod
Chandra Das. The aforesaid exercise be concluded within a period
of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy
of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
