[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bijaya Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And on 3 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.26248 of 2023
Bijaya Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Ms. P.P. Rao, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others
.... Opp. Parties
Mr. S. Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
03.02.2026
Order No
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer: -
"The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that
the Hon'ble court may be graciously pleased to
allow this writ application, issue notices to the
opposite parties for show-cause and further be
pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus/ Certiorari or
any other direction(s) which will deem fit and
proper to this writ application by directing the Opp.
Parties particularly to O.P. Nos.- 3 & 4 to provide
regular post under work charged establishment
bringing over on the basis of his seniority taking
into account his date of initial joining in the post as
01.01.2000 as per order the Hon'ble Tribunal vide
Annexure- 1 as well as the order of O.P.No.-3 vide
Annexure-5 as well as the order passed vide
Annexure-7 and then disburse the differential
arrear salary from the date of seniority to the date
// 2 //
of providing regular post as well as to consider the
service of the petitioner under pension Rules for
pension and pensionary benefits within a
stipulated period with cost.
AND
Further be pleased to pass such other order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit,
equitable and proper to the facts and
circumstances of the present case."
4. It is contended that petitioner while continuing as
a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4, when
he was dis-engaged, he approached the Tribunal by
filing O.A. No.947 of 2004. The said application was
disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated
03.09.2013 under Annexure-1 with the following
direction:-
"In view of the above, the respondent authorities are
directed to verify the seniority list of the Helpers to Pump
Operator who have been engaged after 12.4.1993 and if
on such verification it will be found that the applicant's
position is at sl.no.3 just below the said Madhusudan
Pradhan on the basis of his date of joining, after bringing
him above Rabindra Kumar Behera and there is no one
else above the applicant taking into account their
respective date of joining, in the NMR establishment as
Helper to Pump Operator, then to reinstate the applicant
with effect from the date of his retrenchment i.e. 7.8.2004
with the service benefits and such as seniority in the post
of Halper to Pump Operator with effect from his initial
date of joining i.e. 1.1.2000. But so far as the financial
benefit is concerned, since the applicant has not
discharged his duties with effect from the date of his
retrenchment on 7.8.2004 till the date of his
reinstatement, he shall not be entitled to any financial
benefit following the principles of "No work, no pay".
The entire exercise be completed within a period of
15 days from the date of communication of this order and
the final order passed in this regard be communicated to
the applicant.
However, it need not be said that after such
reinstatement of the applicant he will be considered for
// 3 //
being brought over to work charged establishment on the
basis of his seniority taking into account his date of initial
joining in the post as 1.1.2000, as and when all other
similarly situated NMR employees will be considered for
such benefit."
4.1. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed
by this Court and further order passed in the
Contempt Application, petitioner though was re-
engaged vide order dated 22.06.2023 under Annexure-
4, but he is yet to be brought over to the work charged
establishment taking into account his initial date of
engagement as 01.01.2000.
4.2. It is also contended that since the Tribunal while
disposing the matter, directed for reinstatement as well
as for consideration of the claim for being brought over
to the work charged establishment, after reinstatement
of the petitioner vide order dated 22.06.2023, the other
claim has not yet been considered. It is accordingly
contended that claim of the petitioner for being
brought over to the work charged establishment be
considered by Opp. Party No.2 with passing of an
appropriate order.
5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been
issued since 21.08.2023, but no counter affidavit has
been filed as yet. However, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel contended that pursuant to the order passed
by the Tribunal, petitioner has been re-engaged vide
order dated 22.06.2023 under Annexure-4. It is
however contended that claim of the petitioner for
// 4 //
being brought over to the work charged establishment
if permissible under law, will be considered.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
considering the submission made and taking into
account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal
under Annexure-1 and the order of engagement issued
on 22.06.2023 under Annexure-4, this Court while
disposing the Writ Petition, directs Opp. Party No.2 to
take a decision with regard to entitlement of the
petitioner for being brought over to the work charged
establishment in accordance with law in terms of the
observation made by the Tribunal in its order under
Annexure-1. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to take
a decision as directed within a period of 3 (three)
months from the date of receipt of this order with due
communication to the petitioner.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
