Amar Dalai vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 10 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     W.P.(C ) No.25908 of 2021

        Amar Dalai                        ....                Petitioner
                                                    Mr. S.K. Das, Adv..


                                   -versus-

        State of Odisha & Others          ....        Opposite Parties
                                                    Mr. C.K. Pradhan,
                                                    Addl.Govt.Adv.

                         COROM:
      HON'BLE THE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                   ORDER

Order No 07.04.2026

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:

Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to antedate the appointment of the petitioner from 18.02.1994 i.e. the date from which the batch mates and juniors in the merit list have given appointment as Ophthalmic Assistant; and to grant him all consequential service and financial benefits from 18.02.1994 as given to others without any discrimination within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper,

And further the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to brought the petitioner into the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992 // 2 //

and the GPF scheme of the State Govt.

instead of NPS and to grant him all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper.

And/or issue any other appropriate writ/writs,order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case;

And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.

4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 11.11.1989, Petitioner though was found eligible and selected with issuance of the select list on 19.02.1992 under Annexure-2 with his position at Sl. No.20, but person placed upto Sl. No.19 when were given the benefit of appointment challenging such action, Petitioner along with 3 others approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.393(c) of 1994. The Tribunal vide order dt.26.07.1995 under Anenxure-5 disposed of the matter with the following direction:

In the facts and circumstances of the case we think it would be appropriate for us to dispose of the Original Application with the direction that if vacancies are available at present, the applicants be given appointment against the said existing vacancies. In case vacancies are not available now, future vacancies should be made available to them and they should be appointed against such vacancies on the basis of their merit.

4.1. It is contended that pursuant to such order passed by the Tribunal, though two of the applicants in O.A No.393(c) of 1994 were provided with the

// 3 //

appointment vide order dt.1.11.1995 and another applicant vide order dt.27.12.1995 under Annexure-6 series, but Petitioner's claim was never considered with providing him appointment.

4.2. It is contended that seeking compliance of order dt.26.07.1995 Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an application in IP No.27 of 1996. However, the said Interlocutory Application when was rejected, challenging the same, Petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No.494 of 1999. This Court vide order dt.25.08.2005 under Annexure-8, when directed the Opp. parties to consider the Petitioner's claim in terms of letter dt.07.10.1995 so issued under Annexure-7, Petitioner was ultimately appointed vide order dt.07.01.2006 under Annexure-9.

4.3. It is contended that since Petitioner along with 3 others approached the Tribunal challenging their non-appointment in O.A. No.393(c) of 1994 and pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 26.07.1995 under Annexure-5, three(3) of the applicants, save and except the Petitioner were given the benefit of appointment vide order dt.01.11.1995 and 27.12.1995 under Annexure-6 series, Petitioner claiming the benefit of appointment from the date the other three(3) applicants were so appointed, though approached the authority time and again

// 4 //

with a prayer to antedate his date of appointment, but no decision was taken.

4.4. Petitioner accordingly moved the Tribunal with a prayer to antedate his date of appointment by filling O.A. No.1534(C) of 2009 and the said Original Application after being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order dt.05.08.2021, with a liberty to file a fresh petition with appropriate prayer.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition was filed inter alia with the aforesaid prayer.

4.5. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No.2 be directed to take a decision on the Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of appointment from the date the other three(3) applicants in O.A. No.393(C) of 2014 was so appointed vide order dt.1.11.1995 and 27.12.1995 under Annexure-6 series, with extension of all service and financial benefits, as due and admissible.

5. Even though a counter affidavit has already been filed, but learned counsel appearing for the State contended that since Petitioner has never raised his grievance before the appropriate authority to get the benefit as prayed for, the present Writ Petition with the prayer as made is not maintainable. It is however contended that since Petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court on

// 5 //

25.08.2005 under Annexure-8 has been provided with the appointment vide order dt.07.04.2006 under Annexure-9, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment from the date the other three (3) applicants in OA No. 393(C) of 1994 were provided with the appointment vide order Anenxure-6 series, is not entertainable and the claim is also time barred.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 on 11.11.1989, in the select list published under Annexure-2, Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.20. However, persons placed upto Sl. No.19 were given with the benefit of appointment.

6.1. Petitioner along with 3 others, claiming the benefit of appointment, approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.393(c) of 1994. The Tribunal vide order dt.26.07.1995 under Annexure-5, when directed the Opp. Parties to provide appointment against the existing vacancy, three (3) of the applicants were provided with the appointment vide order dt.01.11.1995 and 27.12.1995 under Annexure-6 series.

6.2. Petitioner when was not extended with the benefit of appointment and he filed the

// 6 //

implementation Petition before the Tribunal seeking compliance of order dt.26.07.1995 in IP No. 27 of 1996, the same when was rejected, challenging the same, Petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No.494 of 1999. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 25.08.2005 under Annexure-8, Petitioner was provided with the appointment vide order dt.07.04.2006 under Annexure-9.

6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that since pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5 three(3) of the applicants were given the benefit of appointment vide order dt.1.12.1995 and 27.12.1995 under Annexure- 6 series, Petitioner should have been given the benefit of such appointment

6.4. However, since Petitioner was only been provided with the appointment vide order dt.07.04.2006 pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Annexure-8, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of appointment from the date the other 3(three) applicants were appointed vide order dt.1.11.1995 and 27.12.1995 under Annexure-6 series, requires a consideration by Opp. party No.2.

6.5. Accordingly, while disposing the Writ Petition, this Court directs Opp. party No.2 to take a decision,

// 7 //

so far as claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment from the date the other three(3) applicants in OA No. 393(C) of 1994 were provided with appointment vide order issued as 01.12.1995 and 27.12.1995 under Annexure-6 series, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order.

6.6. It is further observed that while taking such a decision, the findings given here-in-above shall be taken into consideration.

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita

Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 10-Apr-2026 16:47:55