[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha Represented vs Brahamanda Pradhan .... Opposite Party on 12 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.6831, 6748, 6749 & 7280 of 2019
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
--------------
In W.P.(C) No.6831 of 2019
1. State of Odisha represented
through the Chief Secretary to
Government of Odisha, at
Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar-751001, Odisha
2. Principal Secretary to the
Government of Odisha in Water
Resources Department, At:- Rajiv
Bhawan (Opposite to Odisha
Secretariat), Bhubaneswar-
751001, Odisha
3. Chief Engineer, Minor
Irrigation, Odisha, at: Keshari
Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001,
Odisha .... Petitioners
-versus-
1. Brahamanda Pradhan .... Opposite Party
2. Secretary, Odisha Public Service
Commission, Cuttack
3. Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
represented through its Registrar, Proforma Opp.
Bhubaneswar .... Parties
Advocates who appeared in this case
For Petitioners - Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
For Opp. Parties - M/s. P.K. Mishra, S. Patnaik,
S. Pattnaik & J.R. Kar,
Advocates for caveator
Page 1 of 15
In W.P.(C) No.6748 of 2019
1. Akshaya Kumar Das
2. Bijay Kumar Samal
3. Prasanta Kumar Routray
4. Ashok Samal
5. Asutosh Dash .... Petitioners
-versus-
1. State of Odisha represented
through its Chief Secretary to
Government of Odisha, Odisha
Secretariat, Bhubaneswar-1,
Odisha
2. Principal Secretary to
Government of Odisha,
Department of Water Resources,
At:- Rajiv Bhawan, Bhubaneswar-
1, Odisha
3. Special Secretary to Government
of Odisha, General Administration
Department, Odisha Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar-1, Odisha
4. Odisha Public Service
Commission, represented through
its Secretary, Cuttack
5. Registrar, Odisha
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack .... Opp. Parties
Advocates who appeared in this case
For Petitioners - M/s. K.C. Kanungo & Sambit Kar,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties - Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
M/s. P.K. Mishra, S. Mishra,
S.A. Pattnaik & M. Pati,
Advocates for intervenor
Page 2 of 15
In W.P.(C) No.6749 of 2019
1. Susant Kumar Rath
2. Muralidhar Panda .... Petitioners
-versus-
1. State of Odisha represented
through its Chief Secretary to
Government of Odisha, Odisha
Secretariat, Bhubaneswar-1,
Odisha
2. Principal Secretary to
Government of Odisha,
Department of Water Resources,
Rajiv Bhawan, Bhubaneswar-1,
Odisha
3. Principal Secretary to
Government of Odisha, General
Administration Department,
Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar-
1, Odisha
4. Principal Secretary to
Government of Odisha,
Department of Rural Development,
Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar-
1, Odisha
5. Registrar, Odisha
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack
.... Opp. Parties
Advocates who appeared in this case
For Petitioners - M/s. K.C. Kanungo & Sambit Kar,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties - Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
In W.P.(C) No.7280 of 2019
1. State of Odisha represented
through the Chief Secretary to
Page 3 of 15
Government of Odisha, at
Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar-751001, Odisha
2. Principal Secretary to the
Government of Odisha in Water
Resources Department, At:- Rajiv
Bhawan (Opposite to Odisha
Secretariat), Bhubaneswar-
751001, Odisha
3. Chief Engineer, Minor
Irrigation, Odisha, At: Keshari
Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001,
Odisha
4. Superintending Engineer
(Designs), O/o-Chief Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar. .... Petitioners
-versus-
1. Jaminikanta Das .... Opp. Parties
2. Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
represented through its Registrar, .... Proforma Opp.
Bhubaneswar Party
Advocates who appeared in this case
For Petitioners - Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
For Opp. Parties - M/s. P.K. Mishra & S. Pattnaik,
Advocates for caveator
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 11.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 12.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
Following are a set of four Writ Petitions:
(i) WP(C) No.6831 of 2019 by the State calls in question Orissa
Administrative Tribunal's order dated 26.02.2018, whereby First OP's
O.A. No.134 of 2017 having been favoured, a direction has been issued
to the authorities to treat him as Executive Engineer in Minor Irrigation
cadre with effect from 09.02.2006 and on that basis to accord him
promotion initially to the post of Superintending Engineer and
thereafter, to the post of Chief Engineer with all service & financial
benefits such as back-wages and further, to revise his pension
accordingly.
(ii) WP(C) No.6748 of 2019 & WP(C) No.6749 of 2019 by private
parties seek to call in question Tribunal's common order dated
20.09.2018, whereby their OA Nos.866 of 2004, 1931(c) of 2004,
1990(c) of 2016 & PP 212 of 2006 have been negatived. In those OAs,
they had inter alia sought for the quashment of Gradation List of Asst.
Engineers of Minor Irrigation (MI) cadre dated 18.06.2004. In one of
those cases, i.e., O.A. No.1990(c) of 2016 challenge was laid to the
Govt. orders dated 05.04.2016 & 20.05.2016, whereby the request for
holding the DPC for promotion of Dy. Executive Engineers of MI cadre
to the post of Executive Engineer has been rejected.
(iii) WP(C) No.7280 of 2019 by the State seeks to call in question
Tribunal's order dated 14.05.2018, whereby O.A. No.1013 of 2018
having been favoured, relief has been accorded to OP No.1 as has been
done in its order dated 26.02.2018 entered in O.A. No.134 of 2017, as
mentioned in Sl. No.(i) above.
2. FACTS IN BRIEF:
Full facts with all material details do avail in the Apex Court decision in
Amarendre Kumar Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (2014) 4 SCC 583
and therefore, only such of the facts as are relevant for our adjudication
are stated below:
2.1. The Water Resources Department in the Government had four
wings, namely, (i) Minor Irrigation Division (MID), (ii) Major &
Medium Irrigation Division (MMID), (iii) Mechanical Division (MD) &
(iv) Ground Water Division (GWD). One set of employees belonging to
MMID had launched a spate of litigations before the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal for setting aside the Gradation List of the
Engineers of MID essentially contending that there were no different
divisions as MID & MMID, and therefore, the Gradation List having
been founded on an assumption to the contrary was faultsome. Other set
of employees belonging to MID had launched litigation grieving against
the deprivation of promotional opportunities.
2.2. The Tribunal treated OA No.134 of 2017 as the lead case and
entered the impugned order dated 26.02.2018, whereby promotional
benefits amongst other have been conferred with a direction grant
revision of pay scales, back-wages, and consequent enhancement of
terminal benefits, inasmuch as, the employees had retired. This has been
challenged by the State in WP(C) No.6831 of 2019. Against the said
order Review Petition filed by the State came to be negatived vide order
dated 14.02.2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)
No.6831 of 2019. Other companion cases were also decided by the
Tribunal keeping in view the lead case judgment.
3. CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES:
3.1. Learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently argues that
there were separate wings at least up to a particular point of time,
namely, the enactment of the Orissa Service of Engineers (Validation of
Appointment) Act, 2002; this historical fact having been lost sight of,
the impugned order of Tribunal is liable to be voided. Secondly, the OP
No.1 in 6831 of 2019 had filed OA No.134 of 2017 after brooking a
long delay and therefore, no relief could have been directed to be
conferred on him after retirement. Thirdly, there was status quo order
dated 13.07.2018 in SLP Nos.9679 & 9680 of 2017 and therefore, the
Tribunal could not have ignored the same. Fourthly, all this was urged
before the Tribunal in the Review Petitions; however, the same have not
been found favour with. So contending, he seeks voiding of Tribunal's
Original Order and the Review Order.
3.2. Learned advocates appearing for the private parties, who had
opposed the stand that there were four separate cadres in the Department
of Water Resources, sailed with learned AGA highlighting checkered
history of stipendiary engagement of Graduate Engineers in various
departments & public sector organisations. They too have filed the
companion writ petitions. The learned counsel appearing for them made
submission for faltering the impugned orders of the Tribunal. Learned
counsel appearing for OP No.1 very fervently made submissions in
justification of impugned orders. He highlighted about legislative
intervention and its pervasive effect of white washing all contentions of
learned AGA and those who sail with him.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following
reasons:
4.1. The appointment of unemployed Engineering Graduates on
consolidated stipend of Rs.2000/- per month and latter their absorption
in service two years after their joining in various branches of
Engineering came to be accomplished by the Cabinet decision dated
15.05.1990 under the heading "Problems of Un-employed Degree
Engineers". By Government Resolution Dated 22.09.1990 the
Guidelines regulating the procedure to give effect to the Cabinet
decision were promulgated. During the period between 1991 & 1994
hundreds of stipendiary Engineering Graduates came to be enrolled in
public service on temporary basis. A few selectees, who were not
appointed moved OJS No.2653 of 1998 which came to be disposed off
by this Court vide order dated 06.05.1998, directing the State
Government to consider the candidature of these persons for
appointment. In OJC Nos.6354 & 6355 of 1999 filed by two of the
stipendiary engineers, this Court vide order dated 02.07.2002 directed
regularisation of their appointments and to treat them as direct recruits
from the date of their entry into service for the purpose of in-service
promotion, pension and other service benefits.
4.2. The Government having deliberated over the matter went for
legislative step eventually resulting into 2002 Validation Act, being
enacted. Section 3 of the Act reads as under:
"3. Validation. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Recruitment Rules, seven hundred ninety-nine Assistant Engineers
belonging to the discipline of Civil, fifty-seven Assistant Engineers
belonging to the discipline of Mechanical and twenty-five Assistant
Engineers belonging to the discipline of Electrical as specified in the
Schedule with their names, dates of birth, dates of appointment appoi
and the names of the Departments under which they are working on ad
hoc basis since the date of such appointment shall be deemed to be
validly and regularly appointed under their respective Department of
the Government against the direct recruitment quota of the service with
effect from the date of commencement of this Act and, accordingly, no
such appointment shall be challenged in any court of law merely on the
ground that such appointments were made otherwise than in
accordance with the procedure laid down in the Recruitment Rules.
(2) The inter se seniority of the Assistant Engineers whose
appointments are so validated shall be determined according to their
dates of appointment on ad hoc basis as mentioned in the Schedule and
they shall be unblock (sic en bloc) junior to the Assistant Engineers of
that year appointed to the service in the respective discipline in their
cadre in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules.
(3) The services rendered by the Assistant Engineers whose
appointments are so validated, prior to the commencement of this Act
shall, subject to the provisions in sub-section (2), count for the
purposes of their pension, leave and increment and for no other
purpose"
This Act was struck down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC
No.9514 of 2003, etc. vide common order dated 15.10.2008. However,
the Apex Court in Amarendre Kumar supra has set aside the Division
Bench order, after considering all aspects of the matter.
4.3. In Amarendre Kumar, at Paragraphs 78 & 82.2, it has been
observed as under:
"78. Having said so, there is no reason why a similar direction
regarding the writ petitioners degree-holder Junior Engineers who
have been held by us to be entitled to regularisation on account of their
length of service should also not be given a similar benefit. We must
mention to the credit of Dr Dhavan, appearing for the Stipendiary
Engineers who have been regularised under the provisions of the
legislation that such Stipendiary ad hoc Assistant Engineers cannot,
according to the learned counsel, have any objection to the degree-
holder Junior Engineers currently working as Assistant Engineers on
ad hoc basis being regularised in service or being given seniority from
the date they were first appointed. It was also conceded that
Stipendiary Engineers all of whom were appointed after the
appointment of the Junior Engineers would en bloc rank junior to such
ad hoc Assistant Engineers from out of degree-holder Junior Engineers.
But all such regularised Assistant Engineers from Stipendiary stream
and from Junior Engineers category would together rank below the
promotee Assistant Engineers.
82.2. Writ Petitions Nos. 9514 of 2003, 12494-95, 12627 of 2005,
12706 and 8630 of 2006 filed by the degree-holder Junior Engineers
working as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis are also allowed but
only to the limited extent that the services of the writ petitioners and all
those who are similarly situated and promoted as ad hoc Assistant
Engineers against the proposed 5% quota reserved for in-service
Junior Engineers degree-holders shall stand regularised w.e.f. the date
the Orissa Service of Engineers (Validation of Appointment) Act, 2002
came into force. We further direct that such in-service degree-holder
Junior Engineers promoted as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis
shall be placed below the promotees and above the Stipendiary
Engineers regularised in terms of the impugned, legislation. The inter
se seniority of the Stipendiary Engineers regularised as Assistant
Engineers under the impugned legislation and Junior Engineer degree-
holders regularised in terms of this order shall be determined on the
basis of their date of first appointment as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc
basis."
4.4. The question whether there are different cadres in the Water
Resources Department, need not detain us for long. The Schedule to
2002 Validation Act itself specifically mentions Minor Irrigation cadre,
i.e. MI cadre, H & UD cadre, Industries cadre, Mechanical Industries
cadre, etc. The Legislature has got plenary power to deem certain things
within its competence, even if, factually they do not obtain as such. One
cannot dig the grave to ascertain the factual aspect when legislation
deems certain things, regardless of reality. That being the position these
petitions predominantly structured on the premise of there being no
separate divisions/cadres, therefore, are liable to be rejected.
4.5. The vehement submission of learned AGA that OP No.1 in WPC
No.6831 of 2019, who was the applicant in OA No.134 of 2017 had
approached the Tribunal after brooking a long delay does not merit
deeper examination, and reasons for this are simple: Firstly, in the
Counter filed by the State to the said OA not even a whisper was made
about the delay. Secondly, even in the Review Petition such a contention
was not taken up. Thirdly, the question of delay, subject to all just
exceptions, is conventionally treated as a mixed question of law & facts,
and therefore, without the foundational pleadings, the same cannot be
examined in the Writ Petition. Lastly, Section 21 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act 1985 does prescribe the limitation is true. However, it is
not in the form of a Thumb Rule. Discretion does exist with the Tribunal
to entertain even belated claims, if there is some explanation for the
delay brooked. Even on record, the Government had specifically stated
in its Counter filed in the OA before the Tribunal that the
representations made by the said OP & other similarly placed employees
were kept pending because of a plethora of cases filed by other factions
of employees. Therefore, allowing the State to take up such a plea
virtually amounts to placing premium on the lapse attributable to State
Functionaries.
4.6. The Tribunal in OA No.134 of 2017 at Paragraph 8 has observed as
under:
"8. Respd.No.1 to 3 have filed their counter jointly with the following
averments:
The representations of the applicant at Annx.9 & 10 of the O.A.
were taken into consideration for giving him promotion to the next
higher rank i.e. S.E. Level-ll but due to pending of series of court cases
regarding non-existence of Minor Irrigation as a separate cadre, his
promotion could not be finalized before the date of his retirement i.e.
31.1.2017. Annx.1 to 3 as mentioned in the O.A. has been admitted in
the counter. But stand has been taken that because of series of cases
filed by the Engineers of Irrigation Cadre before different courts, the
applicant's case for promotion could not be considered..."
The State & its officials are expected to act like Model Employers vide
Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234 and
therefore, they cannot defeat legitimate claim of their employees on
unsure grounds of delay & latches. It is more so when such employees
having served in public employment for long have retired with no
blemish in the service records.
4.7. There is force in the contention of learned counsel representing
the contesting Opposite Party-employee that even before the 2002
Validation Act was enacted, there existed MI cadre as a separate unit
and that there was separate Gradation List of employees in this cadre.
Similarly, the Section in Major & Medium Irrigation cadre too there was
a separate Gradation List. Many of employees, who figured in these
lists, have secured promotion to the next higher levels. That having
happened, they cannot be heard to unconscionably contend that the
Gradation List of MI cadre is flawsome. They have no locus standii to
raise their little finger against the regularity of the list in MI cadre to
which they did not & do not belong.
4.8. The last contention of learned AGA that the Tribunal ought not to
have been conferred benefit of promotion on OP No.1 in WPC No.6831
of 2019 and such similarly placed employees in view of status quo order
of the Apex Court in SLP Nos.9679 & 9680 of 2017 does not merit
countenance for the simple reason that the very order itself made it clear
that it did not apply to the employees, who have already demitted office
on superannuation. The Tribunal at Paragraph 18 in OA No.134 of 2017
has rightly observed as under:
"18.In the reply submitted by Respd. No.1 to 3 to the order
dt.25.7.2017 of the Tribunal it is mentioned that in SLP 9679-
9680/2017 status quo order has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
but nothing has been elaborated except that the said order has been
passed against the order in WP(c)No.13066/2016 and RVWP
No.243(c)/2016. But the original order of the Hon'ble Apex Court has
not been filed. Besides this, if the order was passed after the retirement
of the applicant from Govt. service, then the status quo order is not
applicable to him and in the absence of details particulars, it is not
known in which matter status quo order has been passed because the
Engineers of Irrigation Cadre have been promoted periodically on
30.7.2016, 28.3.2017, 31.5.2017 and 30.6.2017. So, the alleged status
quo order is no impediment to consider the case of the applicant."
In the above circumstances, all these petitions being
devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed, and accordingly
they are, costs having been reluctantly made easy.
The impugned orders of the Tribunal shall be given effect
to and a compliance report be filed with the Registrar General
of this Court within an outer limit of two months. Non-
compliance shall be viewed very seriously in the next level of
legal battle.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 12th day of March, 2026/Anisha
