[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Subash Chandra Rout vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 19 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.34956 of 2025
Subash Chandra Rout ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Manas Kumar Swain
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.03.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has
sought for the following relief:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated
hereinabove, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned
order dated 22.05.2024 passed by Opposite Party No.1
(Annexure-7),and to declare that the petitioner is entitled
to be extended notional service benefits with effect from
the date on which other candidates selected pursuant to
the advertisement dated 12.09.2014 were engaged,
together with all consequential service benefits, including
seniority and career advancement benefits, strictly in
terms of the judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C)
No.10125 of 2021 (Anncxure-8) and further seeking a
direction to the Opposite Parties to grant the petitioner
notional fixation of pay, seniority, and other admissible
service benefits from the dale similarly situated candidates
were appointed, without monetary arrears for the past
period, but with actual benefits thereafter and to revise the
petitioner's position in the cadre and extend all
consequential promotional benefits as would have been
available had he been engaged along with his batch mates
pursuant to the 2014 advertisement;
And/or to Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as
may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that pursuant to Resolution dated 11.09.2014, an advertisement was
published by the Opposite Party No.1 inviting an application for
filling up the vacant post of Sikhya Sahayaks on 12.09.2014.
Pursuant to such advertisement, the Petitioner participated in the
selection process. Though the Petitioner was selected, however, the
Petitioner was not given any appointment. Being aggrieved by such
conduct of the Opposite Parties, earlier the Petitioner approached
this Court by filing a writ application W.P.(C) No.15985 of 2023
which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 19.05.2023 directing the Opposite Party No.1 to take a
decision on the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated
period of time.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that after disposal of the previous writ application, the Petitioner
approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation
along with a copy of order dated 19.05.2023. The Opposite Party
No.1 vide order date dated 22.05.2024 rejected the prayer of the
Petitioner on the ground that since the Petitioner was not engaged
and he has not discharged his duties, he is not entitled to any pay
and allowance as provided in Rule-56 of Orissa Service Code. The
rejection order clearly mentions that the Petitioner has joined as a
Junior Teacher (Contractual) on 03.01.2022 vide order dated
30.12.2021 of Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad, Dhenkanal and,
as such, he is entitled to the service benefits with effect from
03.01.2022. Being aggrieved by such order dated 22.05.2024 of the
Opposite Party No.1, at Annexure-7, the Petitioner has approached
this Court by filing the present writ application.
6. In course of his hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Sailendra Narayan Panda & Another v. State of Odisha & Others
decided in W.P.(C) No.10125 of 2021 vide judgment dated
30.07.2024. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel
for the Petitioner contended that an identical issue was under
consideration by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. He
further contended that after detailed analysis of the factual
background of the case and further taking note of several judgments
of this Court, the learned Coordinate Bench has disposed of the writ
application by directing the Collector-cum-Chief Education
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak and District Education Officer,
Bhadrak-II to issue necessary orders to modify orders of
engagement issued in favour of the Petitioners in the said writ
petition by treating their date of engagement as 02.01.2008 and, by
specifically designating them as „Sikshya Sahayaks‟ as envisaged
in the advertisement dated 14.10.2006. The learned Coordinate
Bench further clarified that the Petitioners shall not be entitled to
any financial benefits for the period during which they had not
rendered any work to the establishment but they shall be entitled to
all other service benefits including career advancement benefits,
notionally, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid
judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
rejection order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.1
at Annexure-7 is unsustainable in law.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that after disposal of the previous writ application of the Petitioner,
the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a
detailed representation along with a copy of the order. She further
submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 by virtue of a reasoned
order dated 22.05.2024 at Annexure-7 considered the case of the
Petitioner and the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected on the
ground that the same is contrary to Rule-56 of the Orissa Service
Code. He further specifically argued that since the Petitioner was
appointed only with effect from 03.01.2022 he is not entitled to any
financial benefits prior to his date of initial joining for the period
for which he has not rendered any service to the government. On
such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the prayer
of the Petitioner far availing benefits for the period for which he
has admittedly not worked is absolute illegal and the same is
unsustainable in law. On such ground, learned counsel for the State
contended that the present writ application being devoid of merit, is
liable to be dismissed.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned order
dated 22.05.2024 at Annexure-7, this Court found that the prayer of
the Petitioner has been rejected by referring to Rule-56 of the
Orissa Service Code. Admittedly, the Petitioner joined in duty on
03.01.2022 under the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad,
Dhenkanal. While considering the case of the Petitioner, the
Opposite Party No.1 has not taken into consideration the delay that
accrued between the selection of the Petitioner and his eventual
engagement. Further, it appears that similarly situated persons, who
had appeared along with the Petitioner, were engaged prior to the
Petitioner although they appeared in very same recruitment test.
Such disparity in the date of engagement would definitely cause
discrimination and prejudice to the Petitioner. In the aforesaid
context, this Court referred to the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench in Sailendra Narayan Panda‟s case (supra). It appears that
a similar issue was under the consideration in the aforesaid case.
The learned Coordinate Bench after a detailed analysis of the
factual background of that case, has rendered a judgment on an
identical situation.
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual as well as
legal position, this Court is of the view that the case of the
Petitioner requires re-consideration by the Opposite Party No.1.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned
rejection order dated 22.05.2024 at Annexure-7 is unsustainable in
law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter
is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of
the Petitioner afresh in terms of the judgment dated 30.07.2024
passed in W.P.(C) No.10125 of 2021. Let the Petitioner approach
the Opposite Party No.1 within three weeks from today along with
a copy of today‟s order. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party
No.1 shall consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the
judgment in Sailendra Narayan Panda‟s case (supra) and dispose
of the same within a period of eight weeks by passing a speaking
and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated
to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 20-Mar-2026 13:57:18
