[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manorama Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite ... on 6 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.25708 of 2025
Manorama Mishra ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. B.S. Tripathy,
Senior Counsel along
with Associates
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.04.2026
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel as well as
the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the writ
petition and the document annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has made
the following prayer:-
"On the above premises, the petitioner most humbly
prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to;
(i) hold and declare that denial of the arrear
dues of the petitioner for the period from 6/1994 to
12/2011 on the pretext of application of the ratio of
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 248
in Annexure-2 as bad, illegal and violative of the law
laid down in the case of Banalata Mohapatra, Hara
Prasad Ray and batch, Rashmi Ranjan Das & ors.
as well as recent decision of' the Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court dt. 17.07.2025 passed in WA
No.2854 of 2023 (State of Odisha & Anr. vs.
Trilochan Rout) & WA No.3222 of 2023 (State of
Odisha & another vs., Debendranath Mishra) read
with paragraph-6 of the judgment dt. 18.03.2025
passed in RVWPET No. 177/2024 and as per law laid
down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. C
Lalitha: (2006) 2 SCC 747 and thereby quash the
impugned stipulation in para-3 of Annexure-2,
impugned order in Annexure-5 and Annexure-6.
(ii) direct the OPs to release the differential
arrear dues of the petitioner for the period from
6/1994 to 12/2011 by modifying the order of her
approval dt.08.08.2017 in Annexure-2 and in the
same manner as extended to similarly situated
Lecturers and Demonstrators with interest and costs
within a stipulated period;
(iii) pass such other order(s) as deemed fit and
proper in the bonafide interest of justice;"
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the
outset contended that being aggrieved by order dated 26.11.2021 at
Annexure-5 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government-
Opposite Party No.1 and order dated 24.02.2023 at Annexure-6
passed by the Deputy Director, Department of Higher Education-
Opposite Party No.2 the Petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the dispute involved in the present writ application is squarely
covered by the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State
of Odisha & another Vrs. Debendranath Mishra decided in W.A.
No. 3222 of 2023 by order dated 17.07.2025 at Annexure-11 to the
writ application.
6. In course of his argument, by referring to the order at
Annexure-11, the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner stated
before this Court that an identical issue has already been decided
by the Division Bench in the above noted Judgment. He further
specifically referred to the observation of the Hon'ble Division
Bench at Para-5 of the order at Annexure-11 and stated before this
Court that the benefit which is accrues in favour of the petitioner
cannot be restricted to a period of three years by applying the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of
Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648.
On the contrary, the Hon'ble Division Bench referred to the order
dated 29.04.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa
and others Vrs. Dhiren Kumar Sahoo (SLP (C) No.009531 of
2024). On such ground, the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the Petitioner contended that the impugned orders at Annexure-5 &
6 are unsustainable in law and accordingly, ought to be quashed.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand
contended that he will have no objection in the event Opposite
Parties are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner once again
in the light of the Judgment in Dhiren Kumar Sahoo' case (Supra)
as well as in Debendranath Mishra' case (Supra) at Annexure-11
to the present writ application within a stipulated period of time.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
the dispute involved in the present writ application, further taking
into consideration the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in Dhiren Kumar Sahoo' case (Supra) as well
as Debendranath Mishra' case (Supra). This Court deems it
proper to dispose of the present writ application by granting liberty
to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 again by
filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along
with the copies of the Judgments relied on in support of his
contention, within a period of three weeks from today. In such
eventualities, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider such
representation within eight weeks thereafter keeping in view the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the above noted
two Judgments and dispose of such representation by passing a
speaking and reasoned order. It is needless to mention here that the
impugned order at Annexures- 5 & 6 are hereby set aside.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Suchitra
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 09-Apr-2026 13:29:41
