Orissa High Court
Susanta Kumar Nanda vs State Of Odisha And on 22 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.471 of 2017
Susanta Kumar Nanda .... Appellant
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. M.S. Behera, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and .... Respondents
others Represented by Adv.-
Mr. J.K. Ray, ASC
for OPs. 1 & 2
Mr. K.K. Swain, Adv.
for OP.3
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Adv.
for O.P. 4
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
22.09.2025
Order No.
30. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 06.12.2024 said
as under:
"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present appeal has been filed challenging the
Judgment dtd.24.10.2017 so passed by the State Education
Tribunal in GIA Case No. 148 of 2013. Vide the said
Judgment claim of the present Appellant for approval of his
services as against the 1st post of Lecturer in English in
Dayabihar +2 College, Kanas was rejected. While rejecting
the claim of the Appellant the Tribunal also held that
Respondent No. 4 having joined in service as against the
post in question on 12.08.1991 and the joining of the
Appellant being 01.11.1991, Respondent No. 4 is senior to
the Appellant.
xxx xxx xxx
4.3. It is vehemently contended that the documents enclosed
vide Annexure-5 / Annexure-A/4 & B/4 are all forged
documents and no such order of appointment was ever
issued vide Memo No. DC/17- AP/91(a) dtd.24.10.1991
under Annexure-A/4 / Annexure-5. Similarly, the document
available at Annexure-B/4 i.e. the joining letter of the
Appellant on 01.11.1991 is also a forged document as the
Appellant had never joined on 01.11.1991 basing on the
order of appointment issued on 24.10.1991.
4.4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellant
accordingly contended that let an enquiry be conducted by
an independent agency with regard to authenticity of the
documents available under Annexure-1, 2 & 5 vis-à-vis
Annexure-A/4, B/4 & C/4.
5. Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 4 on the other hand contended that
Appellant was never appointed as contended vide order of
appointment issued on 24.06.1991 under Annexure-1.
Appellant was in fact appointed vide order of appointment
issued on 24.10.1991 vide Annexure-A/4, where he joined
on 01.11.1991 vide Annexure-B/4. Respondent No. 4 on the
other hand was appointed vide order dtd.12.08.1991 under
Annexure-C/4 where he joined on the very same day under
Annexure-D/4.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant & Respondent No. 4 and in order to ascertain the
authenticity of the documents available under Annexure-1, 2
& 5 vis-à-vis Annexure-A/4, B/4 & C/4, this Court is of the
view that all those documents are required to be examined
by an independent agency, more particularly C.I.D.(C.B),
Govt. of Odisha.
6.1. Accordingly, this Court directs the Superintendent of
Police, C.I.D.(C.B) to examine the authenticity of the
documents available under Annexure-1, 2 & 5 as well as
Annexure-A/4, B/4 & C/4 and submit a report to that effect
within a period of one (1) month from the date of supply of
the aforesaid 6 nos. of documents.
6.2. This Court directs learned Addl. Standing Counsel to
provide a copy of this order along with the relevant
Annexure-1, 2 & 5 and Annexure-A/4, B/4 & C/4 within a
period of 10 days from today.
6.3. Superintendent of Police, C.I.D.(C.B) is directed to
submit a report with regard to authenticity of the documents
available under Annexure-1, 2 & 5 vis-à-vis Annexure-A/4,
B/4 & C/4 by 16th January, 2025.
6.4. Respondent No. 3 is directed to cooperate the
investigating agency for due enquiry as directed by this
Court hereinabove.
xxx xxx xxx"
2. On being asked, learned counsel for the appellant, in all fairness,
submits that his client is presently not in service, is true. He also admits
that the respondent No.4 is in service. However, he clarifies that all this
should not be taken as admission on merits of the main matter. When
asked, learned ASC is not in a position to answer as to why the
salary/emoluments are not paid to respondent No.4, from whom services
are being extracted. Learned ASC submits that the officers in their own
wisdom have construed the status quo order as not permitting them to pay
the salary/emoluments. This may not be correct.
3. The Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of
Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 3164 has observed that no labour/service can be
extracted without paying the wages even in respect of sentence serving
prisoners, inasmuch as the doctrine against 'begar' is enacted in Article
23 of the Constitution of India.
In the above circumstances, respondent Nos.1 & 2 are directed to
pay the current salary of respondent No.4 with effect from 01.05.2025.
The claim for arrears of earlier period would be adjudged, when the main
matter is taken up for consideration in October, 2025. In the meanwhile,
this order to be complied with, failing which the defense of respondent
Nos.1 & 2 may be struck off.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Location: Orissa High Court (Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:11:21
Judge
Prasant
