[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Suresh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.2896 of 2026
Suresh Kumar Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC
COROM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.01.2026
Order No
01. 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
challenging order dt.08..12.2025 so passed by Opp.
party No.1 under Annexure-19. Vide the said order,
claim of the Petitioner as made in the representation
dt.20.02.2025 under Annexure-17, so directed to be
considered by this Court in its order dt.09.09.2025, in
W.P.(C ) No.24534 of 2025, was rejected inter alia on
the ground that Petitioner has obtained order
dt.09.09.2025 by providing false information and
Petitioner was never a party to the proceeding in O.A.
No.587(C ) of 2004.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that Petitioner claimed similar benefit as
has been allowed to the applicant in OA No.587(C ) of
2004 and in his representation under Annexure-17, it
// 2 //
was never indicated that Petitioner was a party to the
proceeding in OA No.587(C ) of 2004. It is also
contended that in O.A. NO.587 (C ) of 2004, when the
direction of the Tribunal was not complied with,
applicant therein approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C ) No.6487 of 2025. This Court vide order
under Annexure-15, when directed for consideration
of the Petitioner's claim therein in terms of the said
order, the said Subash Ch. Padhi was extended with
the benefit vide order dt.05.08.2025 under Annexure-
16.
4.1. It is also contended that similar benefit was also
extended in favour of one T.Ramarao Patra as well
as Manoj Kumar Panda, Petitioner taking into
account extension of the benefit in favour of the
applicant in O.A. No.587(C ) of 2004 as well as T.
Ramarao Patra and Manoj Kumar Panda, made a
grievance before Opp. party No.2 to extend similar
benefit under Annexure-17. When the same was not
considered, Petitioner approached this Court in
W.P.(C ) No.24534 of 2025 and this Court vide order
dt.09.09.2025 under Annexure-18, directed for its
consideration. But Opp. Party No.1 on the plea that
Petitioner was not a party to the proceeding in O.A.
No.587(C ) of 2004 and he has obtained the order
from this Court by providing false information,
rejected the claim vide the impugned order
dt.08.12.2025 under Annexure-19.
// 3 //
4.2. It is contended that, it is never the claim of the
Petitioner that he was a party to the proceeding in
O.A. NO.587(C ) of 2004 and instead, he claimed
similar benefit as has been extended in favour of the
applicant in O.A. No.587(C ) of 2004. It is accordingly
contended that the ground on which Petitioner's claim
has been rejected vide the impugned order
dt.08.12.2025 is not sustainable in the eye of law and
the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No.1 to take a
fresh decision on the Petitioner's claim.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel though
supported the impugned order, but failed to satisfy
this Court, the ground on which claim of the
Petitioner was rejected by Opp. Party No.1 vide order
under Annexure-19.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considering the submission made, this
Court finds that Petitioner claiming similar benefit as
has been extended in favour of the applicant in O.A.
No.587(C ) of 2024 and in favour of two (2) other
persons made a representation before Opp. party No.2
on 20.02.2025 under Annexure-17. When the same
was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court
by filing W.P.(C ) No.24534 of 2025.
6.1. This Court vide order dt.09.09.2025 directed
Opp. party No.1 to take a decision on the same. But
as found, Opp. Party No.1 by misinterpreting the
// 4 //
claim made by the Petitioner in his representation
under Anenxure-17, rejected the claim of the
Petitioner vide the impugned order dt.08.12.2025
under Annexure-19.
6.2. Since it is never the case of the Petitioner that he
was a party to the proceeding in OA No.547 (C ) of
2004 and no such false information was ever given to
this Court, 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.
6.3. Therefore this Court while quashing the said
order directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision
taking into account the grievance raised by the
Petitioner under Anenxure-17 and the benefit
extended in favour of the application in O.A NO.547 (C )
of 2004 vide order dt.05.08.2025 under Annexure-16
and the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated
employees.
6.4. This Court directs Opp. party No.1 to pass a fresh
order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide
a copy of this order along with the office order
dt.5.08.2025 so issued in favour of the applicant in
O.A. No.547(C ) of 2004 for compliance.
7. The Writ Petton accordingly stands disposed of.
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Date: 30-Jan-2026 17:57:12
Judge
