[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Krushna Chandra Behera And on 2 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1531 of 2025
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
-Versus-
Krushna Chandra Behera and .... Respondents
another
Mr. Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 02.02.2026
01.
I.A. No.3870 of 2025
There is a delay of 163 days brooked in filing the writ
appeal. An application in I.A. No.3870 of 2025, supported by
affidavit, accompanies the appeal memo, wherein delay is
plausibly explained. Condonation of delay would not prejudice
case of the other side, inasmuch as matter would be heard on
merit. Not condoning will oust the Appellants from Court, which
Courts exercising writ jurisdiction in appeal not do.
In the above circumstances, application in I.A. No.3870 of
2025 having been favoured, delay in filing the writ appeal is
condoned.
I.A. is thus disposed off.
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash )
Judge
This Intra-Court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a
learned Single Judge's order dated 24.02.2025 entered in
Respondent No.1's W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2023, whereby the
following relief has been accorded:
"17. On a conspectus of materials on record and
taking the cue from the judgments of the Apex Court
in the case of Jaggo (supra) and Shripal (supra),
this Court is persuaded to hold that the impugned
order at Annexure-19 rejecting the prayer of the
Petitioner for regularization at par with his juniors
is not sustainable and the same is quashed.
The Petitioner shall be entitled to
consequential service and financial benefits at par
with the incumbents at Anneuxre-9. And, the
exercise is this regard in terms of the judgment be
completed within a period of four months from the
date of production/receipt of the copy of this
judgment, whichever is earlier."(sic)
2. Although learned AGA appearing for the Appellant-State
and its Officials pressed into service a host of contention, they do
not merit consideration again in view of our judgment dated
12.01.2026 entered in W.A. No.975 of 2025 between Principal
Secretary to Government v. Ashok Kumar Pattanayak and
another against the same Appellants. At Paragraph Nos.4.1 to 4.4
and in the operative portion of the said judgment, we have
observed as under:
"4.1. The first contention of learned AGA that the
learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ
petition at the admission stage without giving due
opportunity of participation by filing Counter, is
difficult to countenance. Firstly, no contention of
the kind can be taken without a specific averment to
that effect. What is averred in Ground (B) in the
Memorandum of Appeal does not satisfy this
requirement, although we cannot brand it as
evasive. Secondly, all the contentions urged before
us in support of the Appeal were urged before the
learned Single Judge, who treated them in his
wisdom, although not to the satisfaction of
Appellants. It is not a case of denying due
opportunity of participation in the proceedings
before learned Single Judge. Therefore, the first
submission does not impress us.
4.2. The second submission that the provisions of
Rule 3 read with Rule 18 of 1992 Rules, as amended
in 2005, come in the way of pension being granted to
the Respondents, bit difficult to agree with. Such a
contention was taken up in Panigrahi supra and in
an avalanche of cases; the same came to be
negatived and resultantly terminal benefits like
pension came to be granted to all other similarly
circumstanced employees, as contended by Mr.
Mishra. Matter was carried further to the portals of
Apex Court and the challenge was laid to rest in
SLP (C) Diary No(s). 50364 of 2023 disposed off on
02.01.2024, whereby imprimatur was accorded to
the Division Bench judgment. Therefore, the second
submission also falls to the ground.
4.3. There is also force in the submission of
learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mishra that when the State
has already granted terminal benefits like pension,
etc. under the provisions of 1992 Rules post 2005
amendment, would carve out a class within the class
of pensioners, which falls foul of D.S. Nakara
Jurisprudence. It is not disputed before us by the
AGA that all other similarly circumstanced
employees, who had litigated before this Court
successfully, have been granted pensionary benefits
under the 1992 Rules, of course mutatis mutandis. If
that be so, what justification the State has to adopt a
step-motherly attitude for the poor Respondents
herein, remains un-understandable. In C. Lalitha
supra, Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the
culpable conduct of State in driving a set of
employees to the avoidable legal battle, when other
similarly circumstanced set had emerged victorious
in the litigation.
4.4. It hardly needs to be stated that the State,
being a Model Employer, vide Bhupendra Nath
Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234,
should have on its own extended the benefits of
decision in Panigrahi supra. That course would
have saved public time of the Court and private time
of the litigants, when pendency of cases is mounting
up. This Court notes it with penury at heart that
several unworthy cases are filed before Writ Courts
even when debatable issues have already been laid
to rest at the level of Apex Court of the country.
Which section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of
cases of the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in
enigma. Such a tendency on the part of State and its
instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India, needs to be checked and sooner it is done,
better it will be. Otherwise, the objects of
constitutionally ordained welfare State would be
defeated to the detriment of citizens.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Appeal
being devoid of merits is liable to be and
accordingly rejected, costs having been made easy.
The impugned order of the learned Single Judge
shall be implemented within an outer limit of eight
(8) weeks, and a compliance report shall be filed
with the Registrar General of this Court in two (2)
weeks next following, without driving the poor
Respondents to another round of avoidable
litigation."
What has been observed hereinabove in all fours applies to case
of the Appellants and therefore, this appeal also, being unworthy
of merits, is liable to meet the same fate, as the cognate case.
Ordered accordingly and Writ Appeal is dismissed. The
impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall be implemented
in letter & spirit within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks and
compliance report shall be filed with the Registrar General of this
Court in two (2) weeks next following, failing which the erring
Officials run the risk of contempt action.
Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash )
Judge
Anisha
