Orissa High Court
Askara Gochhaayat vs Orissa Power .... Opposite Parties on 14 October, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 5192 of 2015
1. Askara Gochhaayat .... Petitioners
2. Santanu Kumar
Gochhayat
Mr. S.K. Rath-1, Advocate
-versus-
1. Orissa Power .... Opposite Parties
Transmission
Corporation Ltd.
2. Assistant General
Manager, OPTC
Ltd., Civil Works
Division,
Sambalpur
Mr. B.K. Dash, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
Order No.
14.10.2025
08. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and
learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
2. This is an application by the widow and son of
one Narasingh Gochhayat, who was working as a
sweeper under the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity
Board (OSEB), presently known as Odisha Power
Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL).
3. It is not in dispute that unfortunately the said
Narasingh Gochhayat died in harness on 11.09.1995
and on such sad demise, the widow and his son made
an application for appointment through rehabilitation
assistance scheme, which was prevailing then.
4. Assailing the inaction of the erstwhile OSEB
(Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited) in the matter of
consideration of the prayer for appointment of
Petitioner No.2 under the Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme, the Petitioners approached this Court by
filing O.J.C. No.4846 of 1996. The same was disposed
of by order dated 24.07.2009 giving liberty to the
Petitioner No.2 herein, who was also the Petitioner
No.2 in the said OJC to file a fresh application in the
prescribed form.
5. During pendency of consideration of such
application, a new regulation Grid Corporation of
Orissa Limited Rehabilitation Assistance Regulations,
1997 came into force. The said regulation is on record
at Annexure-B/1.
It was stipulated in such regulation that in lieu
of employment a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
shall be paid. For convenience of reference the
relevant Rule No.5.6 is culled out hereunder;
"5.6 The amount of rehabilitation
assistance which may be made available to
any Beneficiary under these Regulations
shall be Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
only) which shall be paid in accordance with
Regulation 13."
6. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.1 has
been paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only on 06.01.2021
in terms of the regulation, as such the first limb of
the prayer has become infructuous and it is apt to
note that the amount of entitlement is Rs.1,00,000/-
which is wrongly stated as Rs.1,50,000/-.
7. So the only question that remains to be
answered is as to whether the Petitioners are entitled
to any interest on the amount, which has been paid
in the year 2021.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Rath
submits that the entitlement was in the year 1996 in
terms of the regulations referred to herein above and
because of the inordinate delay in payment, the
Petitioners are entitled to interest and this Court in
exercise of power under Article 226 can direct for
payment of such interest.
In this context he relies on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Sovakar Guru vs. State of
Odisha and others, 2022 SCC Online Ori 1478.
9. Learned counsel Mr. Dash, appearing for the
Opposite Parties-OPTCL, submits that the delay had
occasioned since the matter was pending in this Court
and attained finality only in the year 2009, when the
writ petition was disposed of by order dated
24.07.2009 as noted above. And, it is further
submitted referring to the recitals in the counter
affidavit, that granting of interest in the factual
matrix of the case at hand would amount to a
bonanza, and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be
rejected.
10. On considering the rival submission in the light
of the judgment of this Court referred to hereinabove
wherein the entitlement of interest has been dealt
with relying on the judgment of the Apex court in the
case of D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam ltd. and Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 894 the claim
for entitlement of interest is to be considered.
11. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have
moved the authority for getting their legitimate
grievance addressed by employment under the
Rehabilitation scheme in the year 1996 and the
matter was disposed of by order dated 24.07.2009.
There is no plausible explanation as to why no step
was taken by the authorities to make the payment,
on account of the death of the sole bread earner, who
was working as a sweeper in terms of Grid
Corporation of Orissa Limited Rehabilitation
Assistance Regulations, 1997 which admittedly came
into force w.e.f. 01.04.1996.
12. In the factual matrix of the case at hand, this
Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice
would be sub served if the Opposite Parties-OPTCL
are directed to pay interest @ 8% per annum from
01.04.1996 to 06.01.2021, the date on which the
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the Petitioner
No.1 (widow), within a period of 90 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. In the event the amount is not paid within the
period of 90 days as directed, the same will entail
penal interest @ 9% from the date of entitlement as
noted above till it is paid and such penal interest shall
be recovered from the errant official.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed
of.
15. U.C.C. as per rules.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Santoshi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
