Satyabratatripathy vs State Of Odisha &Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 8 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   WP(C) No.21383 of 2022
SatyabrataTripathy          .....         Petitioner
                                                  Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate
                                -versus-
State of Odisha &Ors.             .....                Opposite Parties
                                                        Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
                                                         Mr. S. Das, Advocate
                                                        (Opp. Party Nos. 3 to 5)
                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                               ORDER

08.04.2026 Order No.12

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.Pursuant to order dtd.10.03.2026, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality-Opp. Party No. 3 produced the instruction so provided in Court. The same be kept in record.

3. Basing on the instruction it is contended that in the Municipality in question, 4 posts of Tax and Fee Collector is lying vacant at present.

4. Heard Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 3 to 5.

5. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, it is humbly prayed that your Lordships

would graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why: -

i. The order dtd.08.02.2022 under Annexure:-21 passed by the Opp. Party No.1 shall not be quashed being declared as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in the eye of law;

ii. A specific direction shall not be issued to the Opp. parties for absorbing the present petitioner to the post of Tax Collector under the Municipal Cadre with all consequential service benefits having necessary qualification and eligibility for the said post in view of the provisions contained under the PWD Act. 2016 as well as the Odisha Municipal Services Act, 2015 and the petitioner being physically disabled;

iii. And or pass such other order(s), direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."

6. It is contended that Petitioner was appointed as an Asst. Tax Collector under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide order dtd.05.02.2008 under Annexure-1. Petitioner subsequently as per office order dtd.31.12.2008 under Annexure-2 was allowed to discharge additional duty of driving a Tractor.

6.1. It is contended that while continuing the dual responsibility of Asst. Tax Collector as well as Tractor Driver, vide letter dtd.06.08.2012 under Annexure-3, Op. Party No. 1 requested the Municipality-Opp. Party No. 3 to propose the case of the Petitioner for his absorption as a Driver, considering his ability to drive such vehicle. Accordingly, Petitioner was asked by the Municipality to participate in the Driver Selection Process and Petitioner on coming

out successful was appointed as a Driver vide order dtd.29.08.2012 under Annexure-5.

6.2. It is contended that while continuing as a Driver, Petitioner met with a major accident, resulting in 40% permanent disability. Accordingly, Petitioner became unable to drive the vehicle any further and requested Opp. Party No. 3 to redeploy him to any other post. Such request made by the Petitioner was forwarded by the Municipality to the Collector & District Magistrate, Khurda vide letter dtd.30.07.2018 under Annexure-7.

6.3. It is contended that thereafter though various communications were made in between the Municipality and the Opp. Party-State, but no decision was taken in allowing the Petitioner to continue against any other available post under the Municipality. However, taking into account the vacancy available as against the post of Tax Collector, when the Municipality moved the Govt. and no decision was taken, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 34610 of 2020.

6.4. This Court vide order dtd.10.12.2020 when directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the Petitioner's claim so made in his representation dtd.12.03.2020 under Annexure-17, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-21.

6.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner while continuing as a Driver after his appointment vide order dtd.26.08.2012 under Annexure-5, met with an accident causing 40% permanent disability, which is not disputed, on the request made by the Municipality as well as by the Petitioner to

absorb him as against the post of Tax Collector, such claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected by Opp. Party No. 2 on the ground indicated in the impugned order.

6.6. It is contended that since Petitioner was initially appointed as an Asst. Tax Collector vide order dtd.05.02.2008, he has become eligible for his appointment as against the post of Tax Collector in the meantime. It is further contended that since as admitted by the Municipality, four (4) posts of Tax and Fee Collector is lying vacant in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3, Petitioner can very well be adjusted as against the said post with quashing of the impugned order.

7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, made his submission contending inter alia that since Petitioner while continuing as Asst. Tax Collector participated in the selection process for his selection and appointment as Driver and he was also appointed as such vide order dtd.26.08.2012 under Annexure-5, claim of the Petitioner for his appointment as against the post of Tax Collector, which is a separate cadre cannot be entertained.

7.1. It is further contended that as provided under Sec. 8(1) of the Odisha Municipal Services Act, 2015, since Govt. is the competent authority in respect of all such Group-A, Group-B and Group-C posts coming under Urban Local Body, prayer made by the Municipality to absorb the Petitioner as against the post of Tax Collector cannot be entertained. Sec. 8(1) of the Act reads as follows:-

"8. (1) The Government or the officer authorised by order in this behalf by the Government, shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of all Group-A, Group-B and Group-C posts under any Urban Local Body whether they are included in the municipal service or not and the Government and the officer as so authorised shall be the Cadre Controlling Authority for all those posts."

It is accordingly contended that Petitioner's claim has been rightly rejected.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipality on the other hand contended that since 4 posts of Tax & Fee Collector are lying vacant at present, the Municipality has no objection, if Petitioner will be absorbed as against one post of Tax & Fee Collector. It is also contended that request has been made by the Municipality time and again, recommending the case of the Petitioner, taking into account his disability and the inability of the Petitioner to drive any vehicle.

9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as an Asst. Tax Collector vide order dt.05.02.2008 under annexure-1 of Opp. Party No. 1. However, Petitioner was allowed to drive the tractor of the Municipality vide order dtd.31.12.2008 under Annexure-2.

9.1. Considering such performance of the duty of Driver, Petitioner participated in the selection process for his appointment as against the post of Driver and was appointed as such vide order dtd.26.08.2012 under Annexure-5. However, while continuing as a Driver and which is not disputed, Petitioner met with an accident causing 40% permanent disability. After becoming disabled to the

extent of 40% permanent, Petitioner when failed to drive the vehicle any further, he made request to the Municipality to appoint him as against the vacant post of Tax Collector.

9.2. As found from the record, various communications were made by the Municipality requesting the Govt. to consider the claim of the Petitioner for his absorption as against the vacant post of Tax & Fee Collector, which has ultimately rejected by Opp. Party No. 1 vide the impugned order dtd.08.02.2022 under Annexure-21.

9.3. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner while continuing as a Driver, because of his accident sustained disability to the extent of 40% permanent and he is unable to drive the vehicle any further, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner's claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while quashing order dt.08.02.2022 under Annexure-1, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to absorb the Petitioner as against the vacant post of Tax & Fee Collector in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3 with passing of an appropriate order in that regard, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, Petitioner's appointment as against the said post will be treated as a fresh one and Petitioner will not claim any seniority in the said cadre.

10. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.





                                                         (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Digitally Signed          Sneha


Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 18:26:47