Orissa High Court

Ranjit Kumar Bhattacharya vs State Of Odisha on 20 November, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.22929 of 2024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
----
Ranjit Kumar Bhattacharya .... Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha, represented .... Opposite Parties
through Commissioner-Cum-
Secretary to Government,
School & Mass Education
Department & Others

Advocates Appeared in this case

For Petitioner - M/s. B.S. Tripathy-1,
Senior Advocate with
M/s.A. Tripathy & A. Sahoo,
Advocates

For Opp. Parties - Mr.Satya Brata Mohanty,
Addl. Government Advocate
---
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 20.11.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

Pursuant to Government Resolution No.7873/SME dated

12.03.1996, the advertisement calling for application for

recruitment to the posts of Primary School Teacher was issued.

The selection process was halted due to series of litigations and

thereafter the Final Select List came to be prepared & published

on 17.11.2006 followed by appointment of several candidates,

including the petitioner herein, vide order dated 01.12.2006.

Many appointees had approached Orissa Administrative

Tribunal (OAT) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals

Act, 1985 and one such case is O.A. No.1536 of 2008. In the said

case, applicants prayed that they should be treated as having

been appointed way back in 1997 and not 2006, for all practical

purposes. The Tribunal, vide order dated 04.02.2013, broadly

agreed with this view and inter alia directed to treat the persons in

the batch of appointment as of 1997.

2. The subject order of the Tribunal was put in challenge by

the State & its officials in W.P.(C) No.5820 of 2014, which came to

be negatived by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.11.2017. The

petitioner, having not been a party to these proceedings, made a

representation to the opposite parties for extending the benefit of

OAT judgment, by treating him as of 1997 batch. The said

representation was directed to be considered by Tribunal in his

O.A. No.3043(C) of 2018 disposed off on 04.01.2019. However, the

prayer of petitioner was rejected by the opposite parties vide

order dated 24.06.2021. Aggrieved thereby, he is knocking at the

doors of Writ Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. B.S. Tripathy appearing for the

petitioner argues that when all other batch mates of the petitioner

have been treated as of 1997 appointment, regardless of their

actual appointment in service records, there is no reason or

rhyme not to extend the same benefit to his client on parity basis.

To the question as to why he did not join the bandwagon of

litigation before the Tribunal or before the Writ Court, he

explains that his client was under the impression that the State

being a Model Employer, would extend the same treatment, as

has been bestowed upon batch of litigants, without driving other

similarly circumstanced candidates to Court process. In support

of that, he cites the decision of Apex Court in Dharam Singh v.

State of U.P, 2025 INSC 998. So arguing, he seeks for allowing the

writ petition.

4. Learned AGA Mr.Mohanty appearing for the opposite

parties vehemently opposes the petition contending that there

was absolutely no justification for the petitioner to continue as a

fence sitter, watching what would be the outcome of cases before

the Tribunal followed by the WPs before the Division Bench of

this Court; ordinarily the claim of fence sitters is not favoured by

the Courts; the orders of Tribunal, as affirmed by the Division

Bench judgment, are party-specific. Therefore, those who are not

party to proceedings cannot seek nectar under them. He further

submits that even otherwise, petitioner had brooked a lot of delay

in approaching the OAT in 2018, despite the Division Bench

judgment having been rendered in the year 2014. No explanation

is offered for the delay brooked and therefore, Writ Court should

not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy like the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant

indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

5.1. There is no dispute that 1996-97 recruitment process was

ciloged in litigation process and ultimately the Final Selection List

came to be published only on 17.11.2006; almost a decade was

spent in hope & despair. Petitioner came to be appointed with

effect from 01.12.2006 as a Primary School Teacher and he is going

to demit the office on attaining the age of superannuation before

long. The Tribunal in O.A. No.1536 of 2008 & connected matters

has handed the order on 14.02.2013 to treat petitioner's batch

mates as having been appointed in the year 1997 itself in the

peculiar fact matrix. Challenge to the same by the State in W.P.(C)

No.5820 of 2014 came to be negatived by the Division Bench of this

Court on 22.11.2017. The same has attained finality there being no

further challenge. That being the position, the petitioner could not

have been singled out for a discriminatory treatment.

5.2. Ordinarily, in service jurisprudence, all those who have been

given appointment on the basis of the same Select List, are treated

as one class for the purpose of salary, emoluments, career

progression & terminal benefits, subject to all just exceptions, in

which argued case of the petitioner does not fit. Apex Court time

& again has observed that when one set of employees have been

granted relief in judicial process, other similarly circumstanced

need not be driven to the Court vide State of Karnataka v. C.

Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747 followed by State of U.P. v. Arvind

Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347. The benefit granted to one

set of litigant should be extended to the other set in all fairness,

more particularly when the State is a Model Employer in the light

of Apex Court decision in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of

Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. It is not that the petitioner did not make

any efforts at all, inasmuch as he had made a representation and

that was not considered by the opposite parties. Eventually, he

approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.3043(C) of 2018 that came to

be disposed off vide order dated 04.01.2019 with a direction to

consider petitioner's request. The same has been unjustifiably

rejected by the opposite parties vide impugned order dated

24.06.2021. In my view, the aspects of parity, justice & equity,

which the State as a Model Employer has to show to the deserving

employees, have not animated the impugned order. The reasoning

of the impugned order reflects the Colonial Mind Set of bygone era

and that is an added infirmity in the impugned order.

5.3. Learned AGA Mr.Mohanty submits & this Court agrees that,

some financial issue would crop up because of change of policy of

pension in the year 2005 with effect from 01.01.2005 and therefore,

these implications need to be addressed keeping in view the

interest of the Exchequer on the one hand & the interest of the

employee on the other. This matter need not be deeply examined

by this Court, inasmuch as the terminal benefits that have been

accorded to the retired employees, having the benefit of deemed

appointment of 1997, can be extended to the petitioner with parity

and with same terms & conditions, while recovering the amount

towards pension etc., if need be. It has to be made clear that the

effect of this judgment is only confined to sanctioning & releasing

of terminal benefits of service to the petitioner in a normative

basis.