[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mamata Mishra @ vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposites ... on 28 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19088 of 2025
Mamata Mishra @ .... Petitioner
Mohapatra
Mr. S.S. Patra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposites Parties
Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA
Mr. B.S. Ray, Adv. for OP.4
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
Order No. 28.11.2025
02.
The subject matter of all these writ petitions is substantially
similar to the one treated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in WPC(OAC) No.2062 of 2017 and batch of cases between
Biplab Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha disposed off on
22.03.2023 and therefore, the relief granted to the set of
employees in those writ petitions has to be extended to the
petitioner herein, submits by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Learned AGA having gone through the said Coordinate
Bench judgment, in all fairness, submits that substantially the
version of the petitioner's counsel is true.
3. It is a cardinal principle of administration of justice that
like cases should be treated alike subject to all just exceptions and
no case is made out that would fit into such exceptions.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are
disposed off by quashing the Annexure-8, D.E.O. order dated
24.06.2025 in terms of the order in the cognate case mentioned
above with conditions mutatis-mutandis. In the cognate case, the
following relief was granted to the litigants, reads as under:
"6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties
and after going through the materials available
on record, it is found that on consideration of the
claim of the Petitioners and similarly situated
persons, the list of eligible candidates were
published on 09.06.2014 under Annexure-1 for
their appointment under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme. It is also found that that from
the list under Annexure-1, persons placed at Sl.
Nos.9, 37 and 21 as reflected from Annexure-9,
were appointed on regular basis. Not only that in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
AIR 1989 SC-1133, the clarification issued by
the Government in the G.A Department on
06.02.2015 under Annexure-6 cannot take away
the benefit available to the Petitioners under the
provisions of OCS Rehabilitation Assistance
Rules, 1990, which is a rule framed under
Article-309 of the Constitution of India.
6.1. Placing reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court as cited (supra) it is the view
of this Court that any clarification issued
contrary to the provisions contained in the rule
cannot override the statutory rules. Therefore, the
action taken by the Opposite Parties in providing
appointment to the Petitioners on contractual
post relying on the clarification issued on
06.02.2015 under Annexure-6 is not legal and
justified.
Therefore, placing reliance on the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court
as cited (supra) and the benefits extended in
favour of similarly stiatued persons as reflected
in Annexure-9, this Court is inclined to quash the
order of rejection so passed in the case of Biplap
Kumar Sahoo in WPC(OAC) Sahoo in
WPC(OAC) WPC(OAC) No.2062 of 2017. While
quashing the said order order, this this Court
directs the Opposite Parties to extend the benefit
of regular appointment in favour of the
Petitioners from their initial date of appointment.
On such extension of the benefit of regular
appointment, all service and financial benefit as
due and admissible shall also be extended in
favour of the Petitioners. This Court affects the
Opposite Party No.3 to complete the entire
exercise within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of this order."
Now, no costs.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Basu
Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 29-Nov-2025 17:08:05
