Orissa High Court
Shashi Bhusan Pradhan vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 12 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.13131 of 2025
Shashi Bhusan Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Basudev Barik
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer-in-chief, W.r. Dept., Represented By Adv. -
Odisha Mr.U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
3) Chief Engineer, Jica Project,
Brahmani Left Basin, Sukinda
4) Superintending Enegineer Left
Canal Division No-ii, Duburi
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.05.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"In the circumstances, it is humbly prayed to
this Hon'ble court may be pleased to 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 regularize/grant
continuity the disengagement period of the
petitioner i.e. from 01.04.2003 to 21.07.2012 with
all financial benefits including promotion and all
other benefits which has been granted to his
counterpart employees, as "No work no pay" and
"Last Come First Go" is not applicable to the
petitioner's case for the interest of justice.
And further necessary directions may issued to
the opp. parties to extend the benefits in favour of
the petitioner in the light of law laid down by the
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in its judgment dtd.
19.04.2022 in W.P.C (C) No- 6277/2014 Madan
Chandra Nayak Versus Principal Secretary to
Govt.and batch which has been affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order dtd.
05.12.2024 in Special leave to Appeal (C) Nos-
16485-16487/2023 wherein decided No work no
pay concept is not applicable to the submerged
people directed to grant back wages and case of
Jugal Kishore Nayak order passed in WPC NO-
1065/2009 dtd.06.12.2021, which has been
implemented by the state in a CONTC proceeding
vide order dtd.01.10.2016 passed in CONTC No-
2290/2012.
And pass any order/orders which the Hon'ble
court may deem fit and proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner happens to be a displaced person under the Samal Barrage
Project. As he was classified under the partly affected group he has
been given an appointment on 01.10.1982 as NMR basis as and
brought over to Work Charge on 02.09.1993. Finally, the petitioner
was retrenched from service 29.03.2003.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that while
considering the grievance of similarly placed persons the State
Government constituted a High Power Committee and on the basis
such recommendation of the High Power Committee, the petitioner
was re-engaged on work charge establishment w.e.f. 21.07.2012.
However, the Opposite Parties have not paid the wages/remuneration
in respect of the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner
was not allowed the perform his duty as a result of the retrenchment
order dated 29.03.2003. Challenging the aforesaid conduct of the
Opposite Parties one of the similarly situated persons namely one
Madan Chandra Nayak approached the tribunal by filing O.A.
No.954(C) of 2013 with a prayer to regularise disengagement period
with all financial benefits including promotion and other service
benefits as has been giving to his counter parts. The learned Tribunal
vide order dated 05.02.2013, although allowed the prayer of the
petitioner with regard to regularisation of his period of
disengagement, however financial benefits for the aforesaid period
was not extended in favour of the present petitioner. Being aggrieved
by such decision the petitioner approached this Court by filing the
W.P.(C) No.6277 of 2014. A division bench of this Court disposed of
the writ application of the petitioner along with a batch of similar
other matters vide a common judgment dated 19.04.2022 thereby
directing the Opposite Parties to pay the financial benefits of the
petitioner for the period during which the petitioner was disengaged
from service till his re-engagement, as similar benefits have already
been extended to similarly situated employees.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that being
aggrieved by such order of the division bench, the state-opposite
parties preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16485-16487/2023. The
Hob'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 05.12.2024, dismissed the
appeal preferred by the State-Opposite Parties. Thus, the order passed
by the tribunal as well as the division bench of this Court which was
confirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that
similar benefits have also been extended in the case of one Jugal
Kishore Nayak who had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.1065 of 2009 which was disposed of on 06.12.2011. In such view
of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner is also entitled to the salary/wages for the period for which
he was disengaged from service.
7. Learned counsel for the state on the other hand contended that
although she has no instruction, however on perusal of the writ
application, it appears that the petitioner has already approached the
Opposite Parties by filing a detailed representation on 10.01.2025
under Annexure-6 to the writ application and the same is pending
before the Opposite party No.2. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the State submitted that in the event the representation of
the petitioner under Annexure-6 is pending before the Opposite Party
No.2 and no final decision has been taken thereon, she will have no
objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to
take a decision on the representation of the petitioner under
Annexure-6 in accordance with law within a stipulated period of
time.
8. Considering such submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the materials on
record, further keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance
involved in the writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose
of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the
Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of
the petitioner under Annexure-6 in the event the same is still pending,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a
certified copy of this order. It is further directed that while
considering the representation of the petitioner, the Opposite Party
No.2 shall take into consideration the case of Madan Chandra Nayak
as well as Jugal Kishore Nayak, as has been referred to hereinabove
and the representation of the petitioner be disposed of by passing a
speaking an reasoned order. In the event it is found that the petitioner
stands in a similar footing to the above noted two persons, then
similar benefit be extended in favour of the petitioner within a period
of six weeks from the date of taking such a decision. Any decision
taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the petitioner
from time to time.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
