[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rajani Kanta Srichandan vs Tata Power Southern on 18 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7763 of 2023
Rajani Kanta Srichandan .... Petitioner
Ms. P.P. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Tata Power Southern
Odisha Distribution .... Opposite Parties
Company Ltd., Ganjam &
Anr.
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. for O.P.1
Mr. M.R. Dhal, Adv. for O.P.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
18.03.2026
Order No.
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"Therefore, it is prayed that, the writ petition may be
admitted, the records may be called for and after
hearing the parties the same maybe allowed;
BY
Quashing the order under Annexure-7 and8;
AND
By granting any other relief(s) as found fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case;
// 2 //
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in
duty bound, ever pray."
4. It is contended that Petitioner was engaged as
Technician Apprentice vide order dtd.25.09.2004 so
issued by the then Southco under Annexure-1. In
terms of the said order, Petitioner was given a posting
vide order dtd.04.10.2004 under Annexure-2. Not only
that Petitioner was allotted with a quarter vide order
dtd.18.06.2005 under Annexure-4. However, while so
continuing and undergoing the training, because of the
illness of his father, who ultimately expired in the year
2017, Petitioner could not discharge his duty from the
year 2005, till he made an application before Opposite
Party No.2 under Annexure-5 on 26.04.2018, with a
prayer to allow him to rejoin.
4.1. It is also contended that Southco utility vide letter
dtd.05.04.2019 under Annexure-6 while forwarding the
representation of the Petitioner for consideration
though observed that one such similarly situated
employee has been favourably considered by the
authorities of GRIDCO, but without proper
appreciation of such observation made in the
communication under Annexure-6, claim of the
Petitioner was rejected by Opposite Party No.2 by a
non-speaking order on 04.01.2020 under Annexure-7,
so implemented by Southco vide order dtd.05.02.2020
under Annexure-8.
// 3 //
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that since because of the illness of his
father, he could not discharge his duty for the period
from 2005 to 2018, and person similarly situated has
got the benefit of re-engagement so reflected in
Annexure-6, rejection of the Petitioner's claim by
Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order
dtd.04.01.2020 under Annexure-7 and consequential
order dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8 and that too
without assigning any reason are not sustainable in the
eye of law.
4.3. It is contended that since Petitioner was formally
appointed by the then Southco in the year 2004 and
because of compelling circumstances, he could not
discharge his duty for the period involved, claim of the
Petitioner could have been favourably considered in the
light of the benefit extended in favour of one Kanhu
Charan Behera, so reflected in Annexure-6.
4.4. It is accordingly contended that since Opposite
Party No.1 is now competent to take a decision on the
Petitioner's claim, Opposite Party No.1 be directed to
take a fresh decision by taking a sympathetic view of
the matter.
5. Mr. A.K. Mishra and Mr. M.R. Dhal, learned
counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2
however contended that since Petitioner never
// 4 //
discharged his duty for around 13 years on the ground
of the illness of his father and that too without making
any intimation, claim of the Petitioner has been rightly
rejected by Opposite Party No.2 vide order
dtd.04.01.2020 under Annexure-7 and by the then
Southco vide order dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this
Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a
Technician Apprentice vide order issued on 25.09.2004
under Annexure-1 of the then Southco. While
undergoing the training, Petitioner remained absent
w.e.f. 01.09.2005, on the ground of illness of his father
and he made a representation only in the year 2018
under Annexure-5 with a prayer to allow him to re-join.
Such prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected by
Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.04.01.2020 under
Annexure-7 and by the then Southco vide order
dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8.
6.1. Since the impugned rejection is a non-speaking
order and no reason has been assigned, this Court on
that ground only is inclined to quash order
dtd.04.10.2020 under Annexure-7 and consequential
order dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8. While
quashing both the orders and taking into account the
fact that Opposite Party No.1 has taken charge of the
distribution from 01.01.2020, this Court directs
// 5 //
Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the
Petitioner's claim taking into account the difficulties
pointed out in the representation under Annexure-5
and similar benefits extended in favour of Kanhu
Charan Behera so reflected in Annexure-6.
6.2. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a
fresh decision within a period of two (2) months from
the date of receipt of this order. If it will be found that
Kanchu Charan Behera is similarly situated and has
got the benefit as prayed for by the Petitioner, the same
be taken into consideration by Opposite Party No.1.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
