[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pradipta Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13043 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Pradipta Kumar Mohanty .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Pujari, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 20.02.2026 and Date of Judgment: 20.02.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Pursuant to order dtd.20.01.2026, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner produced copy of the application filed by the State before
the Tribunal on 10.11.1997, which was registered as R.P. No.102 of
1997 in Court. The same be kept in record.
// 2 //
3. Heard Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for
the Opp. Parties.
4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
"The petitioner, therefore, prays that your
Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit the
petition, issue notice to the Opp. parties to show cause as
to why the petition shall not be allowed;
And after hearing the Counsel for the parties
allow the petition with cost;
And issue appropriate nature of writ quashing the
order under Annexure-8.
And issue appropriate nature of writ directing
that the petitioner's service as Surveyor be deemed to be
from 27.11.78 and that he is entitled to all service and
financial benefits w.e.f. 27.11.78;
And issue appropriate nature of writ directing the
Opposite parties to pay all financial and service benefits
on the basis of the petitioner's service to be counted as
Surveyor with effect from 27.11.1978 and accordingly
the differential pay and pension and all financial benefit
as applicable be paid to him within a specified time;
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as
in duty bound ever pray."
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Petitioner vide office order dtd.21.11.1978 under Annexure-1 was
// 3 //
appointed on ad hoc basis to officiate as an Amin, however, against
the post of Surveyor. In terms of the said order Petitioner joined in his
post on 27.11.1978.
5.1. It is contended that one Dinabandhu Barik along with others were
appointed as Amins, but against the post of Surveyor vide order
dtd.21.03.1979. However, the said Dinabandhu Barik & Ors.
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 408 of 1989 with a prayer
that they should be appointed as Surveyor and be paid with the salary
as applicable to the post of Surveyor from the date of their initial
appointment as Amin.
5.2. It is contended that the said Original Application was allowed by
the Tribunal vide order dtd.14.02.1992 inter alia with the following
order:-
"The most vital document in favour of the petitioner is
Annexure-4 wherein while refusing to give any special pay the
Government have ordered:-
'Government have been further pleased to decide that the Amins
who have been trained to contour survey and working as
Surveyors may be appointed as Surveyors and allowed the scale
of pay fixed for Surveyors, as they are supported to do the work
of Surveyors as qualified Surveyors.'
We feel this Government order clinches the issues. Firstly, the
petitioner from the beginning was working as Surveyor because
he was originally appointed against the sanctioned post of
// 4 //
Surveyor and doing the work. Secondly, the Government
directed that they be appointed as Surveyors instead of Amins.
As admitted in Annexure-3, a letter from the Director of
Agriculture addressed to the Secretary to Government against
96 posts of Surveyors sanctioned by the Government there are
27 Surveyors in position further makes it clear that 26Surveyors
is now working as Amins and their works have been found to be
satisfactory. In view of the fact that there is a clear Government
direction to appoint them as Surveyors and there are vacancies
for the posts of Surveyors and they are working as Surveyors
and have been trained as such, there seems to be no reason to
extract work from them as Surveyors without appointing them to
the post. We have no hesitation in directing that the petitioner
be appointed as Surveyor. We direct further that the period the
petitioner worked as Surveyor as per order dt.9.3.79 as is
evident from Annexure-1 until they are regularly appointed as
Surveyors they should be paid the salary and allowances as
admissible for Surveyors on their initial appointment. After their
regular appointment they would come into the scale of
surveyors. The petition is allowed. No costs."
5.3. It is contended that order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 408
of 1989 was implemented by the State-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order
dtd.12.05.1992 under Annexure-2. Applicants in the said O.A.
including Dinabandhu Barik were allowed to work as Surveyor
w.e.f.22.04.1992. However, the arrear claim w.e.f.1980 was not
released seeking approval of the Finance Department.
// 5 //
5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 02.11.1993 in M.P.
No. 1821 of 1993, arising out of O.A. NO. 408 of 1989, the applicants
in the said O.A. were extended with the financial benefit from their
initial date of appointment.
5.5. It is contended that pursuant to such order passed by the Tribunal
on 02.11.1993, applicants therein were extended with the financial
benefits w.e.f.08.06.1979 i.e. from the date, they were allowed to
work as Surveyor. Order dtd.02.11.1993 reads as follows:-
"A letter from the Commissioner addressed to the
Government Advocate is shown to us to-day, wherein
orders have been passed on 29.9.93 to the following
effect:
'In pursuance to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.408/89, Government in
Agriculture Deptt, letter dated 23.6.93 has appointed the
petitioner as Surveyor in the scale of pay of Rs.300-440/-
with effect from 8.6.1979 i.e. the date from which he was
allowed to work as Surveyor after returning from Surveyor
Training, Direction has also been issued to take
immediate steps for making payment of the differential
amount for the past period as per the judgment of the
Tribunal.'
In view of the aforesaid letter we finally direct for
payment of the differential amount which has not been
// 6 //
paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order."
5.6. It is contended that following the order passed in O.A. No. 408 of
1989, another set of similarly situated Amins working as against the
post of Surveyor also moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1784 of
1992. The said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal vide
order dtd.28.10.1992. Order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1784
of 1992 was also implemented by the Govt.. The aforesaid fact
reflected in letter dtd.04.02.2009, reads as follows:-
"I am directed to invite a reference to this Department
letter No.2651 dt.11.6.2007 and your office letter No.324
dt.7.7.2007, No.326 dt.7.7.2007 and No.334 dt.7.7.2007 on
the above captioned subject (i.e. O.A. No.1784/92) and to say
that, as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble O.A.T. in the
aforesaid case, Sri R.K. Mohapatra and two others be
appointed as Surveyors and paid the salary admissible and
other entitlements applicable to that post if they are covered
by the judgment referred to in Annexure-5 (copy enclosed)
where in 74 Amins have been allowed by the Agriculture
Department vide their order No.16352/AG dt. 12.5.1992 to
work as Surveyors.
Hence, Sri R.K. Mohapatra and 2 others are entitled to
get the arrear claims for the period from 12/78 to 5/95 as per
the calculation received from your office vide letter No.246
dt.25.4.2006 and letter No.2328 dt.22.7.2006 of Executive
Engineer (Agriculture, C.A.D. Division, Bhubaneswar).
// 7 //
You are therefore instructed to take necessary steps for
drawal of the arrear claims and payments to Sri Sadangi,
Surveyor and to Sri Panda, Surveyor of your office without
any further delay. The copy of the judgment enclosed for
reference."
5.7. It is contended that since Petitioner is senior to the applicants in
both O.A. Nos.408 of 1989 as well as 1784 of 1992, he also moved
the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1074(C) of 1997 claiming similar
benefit of his appointment as a Surveyor with release of his salary as
due and admissible to the post of Surveyor from his initial date of
appointment i.e.27.11.1978. The Tribunal vide order dtd.07.04.1997
under Annexure-3, while holding that juniors to the Petitioner have
been given appointment as Surveyor in preference to the Petitioner,
directed the Opp. Parties to appoint the Petitioner as a Surveyor and to
pay his salary and other entitlement as applicable to the post of
Surveyor. Order passed by the Tribunal on 07.04.1997 reads as
follows:-
"This is as regards to the prayer of the applicant to
appoint the applicant as Surveyor with pay admissible to the
post of Surveyor and allowances and to direct the
Respondents to pay arrear salary and allowances from
27.11.1978, within a stipulated period for ancillary reliefs.
2. The case of the applicant, in short, is that the applicant
having passed Matric and Amin training course and having
been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was
// 8 //
selected on the basis of the interview as Amin, but he was
posted against the post of Surveyor in the establishment of
Command Area Development as per the order dated
21.11.1978 under Annexure-1. The final gradation list dated
29.6.1988 vide Annexure-2 was prepared on the basis of the
merit list and the name of the applicant finds place at serial
No.45 in the gradation list. The post of Surveyor is a higher.
post carrying higher scale of pay than the Amin. The
applicant was paid Amin scale of pay instead of Surveyor
scale. One Dinabandhu Barik who is junior to the applicant
filed 0.A.408/1989 claiming scale of pay admissible to the
post of Surveyor and the Tribunal by the judgment dated
14.2.1992 directed the Respondents to appoint him as
Surveyor and to pay surveyor salary and allowances It is
stated in the application that by the order dated 12.5.1992
vide Annexure-4 the said judgment was implemented and the
benefit was extended to 74 other Amins.
The grievance of the applicant is that though he is
placed similarly with that of the applicant in 0.A.408/1989
and some of the juniors to the applicant in the gradation list
had been given. benefit by the order of the Tribunal, he is
also entitled as a matter of right to get the post of Surveyor
and the pay prescribed for the post.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the
learned Standing Counsel. During course of argument it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
present case E the applicant is squarely covered by the two
judgments rendered by this Tribunal in 0.A. 408/1989 and
0.A.1784/1992. Learned counsel for the applicant has further
submitted that in pursuance of the order in 0.A.1784/1992
directing appointment of Amins as Surveyors, three Amins
were given appointment as Surveyors in the scale of pay
// 9 //
admissible to the post which is evident from Annexure-7,
Similarly, in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal in
Ο.Α.408/1989, 73 Amins were appointed as Surveyors in the
scale of pay admissible to the post by the order dated
8.11.1993 under Annexure-5. If implementation of the orders
of the Tribunal as mentioned in Annexures-5 and 7 is taken
into consideration, it prima facie shows that his juniors as
referred in the gradation list under Annexure-2 have been
given appointment as Surveyors in preference to the
applicant. It is the sound proposition of law that merely
because some persons have gone to the court and got relief,
the person who has not come to the court should not be
denied the relief if he is similarly placed with other persons
who are the immediate beneficiaries by the judgment of the
Court or Tribunal.
4. In view of what is stated in the application and in
consideration of the documents and the orders rendered by
this Tribunal stated supra, I would dispose of the application
with the direction that the applicant be appointed as a
Surveyor and paid salary and other entitlements applicable
to the post, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondents are at liberty
to seek modification of the order if they find that the order is
unimplementable.
Send copies to the parties with copies of paper book
to 0.Ps."
5.8. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even
though orders passed in O.A. Nos. 408 of 1989 as well as 1784 of
1992 were implemented by the State, not only by appointing the
applicants therein as against the post of Surveyor with release of the
// 10 //
benefits from their initial date of appointment, but similar order
passed in the case of the Petitioner under Annexure-3, was never
implemented and instead State filed R.P. No. 102 of 1997 before the
Tribunal on 10.11.1997 seeking modification of order dtd.07.04.1997.
5.9. On the ground of pendency of such a Review Petition in R.P. No.
102 of 1997, order passed on 10.11.1997 was never implemented.
However, the said Review Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution
vide order dtd.23.11.2010 under Annexure-10. After dismissal of the
Review Petition vide order dtd.23.11.2010, Petitioner was appointed
as against the post of Surveyor vide office order dtd.07.02.2015 under
Annexure-4 and his initial pay was fixed w.e.f.08.03.2015.
5.10. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after
being so appointed vide order dtd.07.02.2015, Petitioner raised a
claim under Annexure-5 series with a prayer to extend similar benefit
as has been extended in favour of the applicants in O.A. No. 408 of
1989. Order passed by the Director under annexure-6 was also relied
on by the Petitioner showing appointment of the applicants in O.A.
No. 408 of 1989 as against the post of Surveyor w.e.f. their initial date
of appointment. Such claim of the Petitioner when was not considered
and in the meantime he also attained the age of superannuation
// 11 //
w.e.f.30.04.2017, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.30707 of 2021, with a prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to treat the
Petitioner as a Surveyor w.e.f.27.11.1978 and to release all service
and financial benefits as due and admissible.
5.11. This Court vide order dtd.25.10.2021 when directed for
consideration of the Petitioner's claim, Opp. Party No. 1 without
proper appreciation of the claim of the Petitioner, rejected the same
vide the impugned order dtd.29.12.2022 under Annexure-8.
5.12. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently
contended that since persons similarly situated and appointed as Amin
on ad hoc basis as against the post of Surveyor, subsequent to the
appointment of the Petitioner, pursuant to the order passed by the
Tribunal in O.A. No. 408 of 1989 were not only appointed as against
the post of Surveyor, but also they were released with all service and
financial benefits from their initial date of appointment, and similar
order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1784 of 1992 was also
implemented by extending similar benefit, on the face of the order
passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3, Petitioner was not extended
with similar benefit, on the ground of pendency of a Review Petition
in R.P. No. 102 of 1997.
// 12 //
5.13. The Review Petition though was dismissed for non-prosecution
vide order dtd.23.11.2010, but Petitioner was appointed as a Surveyor
only vide office order dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4 and while
continuing as such, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation
on 30.04.2017. It is however fairly contended that, on such retirement
of the Petitioner, he has been extended with all retiral benefits
including pension.
5.14. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly
contended that since persons similarly situated and juniors to the
Petitioner pursuant to similar order passed by the Tribunal were not
only appointed as against the post of Surveyor on regular basis from
their initial date of appointment and were also extended with the
service and financial benefits from such initial date of appointment,
but Petitioner being similarly situated and more suitable than the
applicants in O.A. No. 408 of 1989, could not get the benefit of
similar order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3 on 07.04.1997,
till he got the same vide order dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4. It is
accordingly contended that since persons similarly situated pursuant to
the order passed by the Tribunal, were extended with the benefit of
appointment as well as release of all service and financial benefits
// 13 //
from their initial date of appointment, rejection of the claim of the
Petitioner vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5.15. It is contended that since Petitioner is similarly situated, he
should have been extended with all service and financial benefits from
his initial date of appointment i.e.27.11.1978 pursuant to order under
Annexure-3. But without proper appreciation of such claim of the
Petitioner, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order under
Annexure-8, which requires interference of this Court. In support of
his submission, reliance was placed to the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava and Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347 & State of Karnataka & Ors.
Vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747.
5.16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 22 and 23 of the judgment in the
case of the Aravind Kumar Srivastava has held as follows:-
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of
the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as
the respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit.
Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle
needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the
// 14 //
service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time
postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated
similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely
because other similarly situated persons did not approach the
Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts
who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their
efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be
extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and
laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid
ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases
where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem
with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they approached the court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself
extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a
situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation
and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C.
Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S)
226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in
personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue
to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from
the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the
benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy
// 15 //
that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.
23. Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find that
the selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment
orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide
orders dated 22-6-1987. The respondents before us did not
challenge these cancellation orders till the year 1996 i.e. for a
period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the
cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996
only after finding that some other persons whose appointment
orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years
had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to the
parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight
that these respondents have not joined service nor working like
the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal.
As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of
cancellation orders. Therefore, not only was there unexplained
delay and laches in filing the claim petition after a period of 9
years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appellants to give
them appointment as of today i.e. after a period of 27 years when
most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or
above."
5.17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 29 of the judgment in the case of C.
Lalitha has held as follows:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be
treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the
court that would not mean that persons similarly situated
should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that
the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It
// 16 //
may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent
events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been
promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I
post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust
her must be held to have been issued only with a view to
accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been
reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to
which she was not otherwise entitled to."
6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit
so filed by Opp. Party No. 4. It is contended that the order passed by
the Tribunal on 07.04.1997 under Annexure-3, was not implemented
as State filed Review Petition No. 102 of 1997 seeking review of the
said order. The Review Petition was ultimately dismissed for non-
prosecution vide order dtd.23.11.2010 under Annexure-10. After such
dismissal of the Review Petition, Petitioner was extended with the
benefit of appointment as against the post of Surveyor vide order
dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4.
6.1. It is contended that Petitioner without any objection, accepted the
benefit of order dtd.07.02.2015 and after accepting such benefit, he
raised his claim to extend the benefit from his initial date of
appointment i.e.27.11.1978 pursuant to Annexure-1. It is contended
that since Petitioner without any objection, accepted the offer given to
// 17 //
him vide office order dtd.07.02.2015, claim made by the Petitioner to
release all service and financial benefits from his initial date of
appointment after due consideration has been rightly rejected and it
requires no interference.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was
appointed as an ad-hoc Amin against the post of Surveyor vide order
dtd.21.11.1978 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order,
Petitioner joined on 27.11.1978. However, it is found that persons
similarly situated and appointed as ad hoc Amin against regular post
of Surveyor in the year 1978-79, moved the Tribunal by filing O.A.
No. 408 of 1989 seeking appointment as against the post of Surveyor
from their initial date of appointment. Such claim of the applicants in
O.A. No. 408 of 1989 when was allowed by the Tribunal vide order
dtd.14.02.1992, applicants therein were appointed as against the post
of Surveyor vide order dtd.12.05.1992 under Annexure-2. They were
also extended with the financial benefits pursuant to the further order
passed by the Tribunal on 02.11.1993 in M.P. No. 1821 of 1993.
7.1. It is also found from the record that similar order passed by the
Tribunal in O.A. No.1784 of 1992 on 28.10.1992 was also
// 18 //
implemented by the State so reflected vide letter dtd.04.02.2009 of
the Govt. in the Department of Water Resources. However, it is found
that similar order passed by the Tribunal in the case of the of the
Petitioner on 07.04.1997 in O.A. No. 1074 of 1997 under Annexure-3,
was not implemented on the ground of pendency of a Review Petition
so filed in R.P. No. 102 of 1997.
7.2. The said Review Petition filed by the State was dismissed for
non-prosecution vide order dtd.23.11.2010 under Annexure-10. After
dismissal of the Review Petition, order passed by the Tribunal on
07.04.1997 was implemented by appointing the Petitioner as against
the post of Surveyor vide office order dtd.07.02.2015 under
Annexure-4. After such appointment of the Petitioner as against the
post of Surveyor, Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and
was allowed to take retirement w.e.f.30.04.2017 vide order under
Annexure-7.
7.3. This Court taking into account the benefit extended in favour of
the applicants who are similarly situated in O.A. Nos. 408 of 1989 and
1784 of 1992, is of the view that Petitioner is also eligible and entitled
to get similar benefits, as has been extended in favour of the such
// 19 //
similarly situated applicants pursuant to the order passed by the
Tribunal.
7.4. Since order passed by the Tribunal on 07.04.1997 was never
implemented because of pendency of the Review, which was
ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution and after dismissal of the
Review Petition, Petitioner was regularly appointed vide order
dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4, it is the view of this Court that
Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all service and financial
benefits as against the post of Surveyor from the date of his initial
appointment i.e.27.11.1978, till he attained the age of superannuation
on 30.04.2017.
7.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash
order dtd.29.12.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-
8. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1
to extend all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to
the Petitioner from his initial date of appointment as against the post
of Surveyor vide order under Annexure-1 dtd.21.11.1978, with his
date of joining as 27.11.1978. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to
release all the entitlements by making due calculation as expeditiously
// 20 //
as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the
date of receipt of this order.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 20th February, 2026/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
