[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bijan Bihari Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.30610 of 2022
Bijan Bihari Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
18.03.2026
Order No.02
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the
rejection of the Petitioner's claim for inclusion of his name in the
gradation list of NMR/HR persons working under PH Division No-
II, Cuttack published under Annexure-4.
4. It is contended that even though Petitioner was engaged as a
Pump Driver on HR basis w.e.f.12.03.2004, but while issuing the
gradation list under Annexure-4, when his name was not reflected,
though persons engaged up to February 6, 2004 were included,
Petitioner made a prayer before Opp. Party No. 4 for inclusion of
his name in the said gradation list.
4.1. As the same was not considered, Petitioner approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 16733 of 2021. This Court vide order
dtd.08.06.2021 under Annexure-7, when directed for consideration
of the Petitioner's claim, such claim was rejected by Opp. Party No.
2 vide the impugned order dtd.20.04.2022 under Annexure-11, only
on the ground that no person in the name of the Petitioner has ever
been engaged in PH Division, Cuttack.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner taking this Court
to the documents available at Page 37 & 38 of Annexure-8 series
and 9, contended that in those two (2) documents, name of the
Petitioner was reflected at Sl. No. 13 and 1 respectively showing his
engagement.
4.2. It is also contended that in the counter so filed by the Opp.
Parties in Para 11, it has been clearly admitted that during Covid-19
situation Petitioner was issued with the Pass by the I.I.C., Banki
Police Station for smooth management of water supply system.
Stand taken in Para 11 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
"11. That in reply to averments made at paragraph No.10
of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that, the petitioner
has never been engaged as HR worker under Executive
Engineer, PH Division-II, Cuttack. The Assistant Engineer,
PH Section Banki might have engaged the petitioner as
labour for maintenance and operation of water supply
system as and when required. There is no authentic
documents regarding engagement of Petitioner as HR
personnel in PH Section Banki. When resurgence of Covid-
19 situation, is going on the Govt. have imposed the
restrictions for public gathering, it was necessary to issue
pass to workers for operating the water supply system.
Hence the Assistant Engineer, PH Section, Banki has
requested to IIC, Banki Police Station for issuing the pass
in favour of PH workers along with the Petitioner with the
other workers for smooth management of water supply
system during Covid-19 situation."
4.3. It is accordingly contended that on the face the documents
available under Annexure-8 series and 9 and the admission made in
Para 11 of the counter affidavit, the ground on which Petitioner's
claim has been rejected vide the impugned order for inclusion of his
name in the gradation list so published under Annexure-4, is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
5. It is also fairly contended that Petitioner as on date is continuing
as a Pump Driver under Banki N.A.C. on being deputed to work as
such. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order needs
interference of this Court.
5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other
hand while supporting the impugned order, contended that since no
document is available in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 4 with
regard to continuance of the Petitioner as a Pump Driver, basing on
the letter issued by the Superintending Engineer, PH Division,
Cuttack, Petitioner's claim was rejected. It is accordingly contended
that since no document is available with regard to continuance of
the Petitioner under PH Division, Cuttack, his claim has been
rightly rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties,
considering the submission made and taking into account the
documents available under Annexure-8 series and 9 and the
admission made in Para 11 of the counter affidavit, 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.
6.1. Therefore, while quashing order dtd.20.04.2022 so passed by
Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-11, this Court remits the matter
to the said authority to take a fresh decision taking into account the
documents available under Annexure-8 series and 9 and so also the
admission made in Para 11 of the counter affidavit. This Court
directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision within a period of
three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order with due
communication to the Petitioner. Petitioner is also directed to
provide any supporting documents showing his continuance as on
date before Opp. Party No. 2 within a period of seven (7) days
hence along with a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
