[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ganesh Prasad Palai vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8890 of 2026
Ganesh Prasad Palai ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Kunal Kumar Swain
-versus-
state of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
23.03.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has
sought for the following relief:-
"Under the above circumstances, it is
humbly prayed that the writ petition may be
allowed;
And
(A) a writ of Certiorari or an appropriate
writ may be issued quashing the impugned order
dated 09.02.2026 issued by the District
Education Officer, Bhadrak under Annexure:8
and necessary direction may be made to the
opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work
as Peon in the School in question pursuant to the
Government order dated 23.01.1981 under
Annexure:4 as his appointment was approved
against the post of Peon instead of Night
Watchman-cum-Sweeper and in case the
petitioner is allowed to work as Night
Watchman-cum-Sweeper he may be allowed to
work for eight hours with one day leave / holiday
in a week including the benefit of other holidays
in terms of resolution dated 30.05.1996 issued by
the Government of Odisha in General
Administration Department, Bhubaneswar under
Annexure:6, within a time to be stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court;
(B) And any other order / orders or direction /
directions may be issued so as to give complete
relief to the petitioner;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner
shall as in duty bound remain ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that the Petitioner on being duly selected was
appointed as a 3rd Peon in B.C. High School, Ertal in the
district of Bhadrak on 20.07.1992. Thereafter his appointed
was approved by order dated 06.08.1992 by the Inspector of
School, Bhadrak Circle against 3rd post of Peon. While this
was the position the school in question was taken over by
Government by virtue of Resolution dated 16.12.1994.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after
the school in question was taken over by the State
Government, the Petitioner was transferred to Sridhar Ekadasi
High School, Lunga in the district of Bhadrak on 08.07.2016.
5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner raised objection with regard to the fact that the
Petitioner has been appointed against the 3rd post of Peon
however he has been asked to work as a Night Watchman-
cum-Sweeper. He further contended that as per the
Government Circular dated 23.01.1981 it is clearly provided
that Class-IV employees appointed against the particular
cadre could not be appointed, transferred or posted to another
category of Class-IV post which belongs to a different cadre.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that under a compulsion the petitioner continued to
discharge his duties as Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper in
Sridhar Ekadasi High School, Lunga. He further contended
that the Petitioner was asked to perform his duties for almost
seventeen hours in day without any leave/holidays being
allowed to him.
7. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner referring to G.A. Department, Government of
Odisha Resolution dated 30.05.1996 stated before this Court
that as decided by the Government a Night Watchman-cum-
Sweeper shall be allowed a day's leave in every week. A copy
of such resolution has also been attached to the writ
application at Annexure-6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
at the juncture further submitted that earlier the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6408 of 2025
which was disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2025 with a
direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the grievance of
the Petitioner. He further submitted that despite such direction
the grievance of the petitioner was not properly considered.
8. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner also referred to the impugned rejection order dated
09.02.2026 at Annexure-8. By virtue of the impugned order
dated 09.02.2026, the DEO, Bhadrak without considering the
grievance of the Petitioner in proper perspective has rejected
the representation of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such
rejection of his representation by a cryptic order without
referring G.A. Department resolution, the Petitioner has once
again approached this Court by filing the present writ
application.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter.
However, referring to the impugned rejection order dated
09.02.2026 at Annexure- 8, learned Addl. Government
Advocate contended before this Court that the grievance of
the Petitioner was duly considered by the DEO, Bhadrak-
Opposite Party No.3 and that the same has been rejected by
passing a reasoned order. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the State contended that the present writ
application is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same
should be dismissed.
10. On a careful examination of order dated 09.02.2026 at
Annexure-8, this Court observed that the grievance of the
Petitioner as involved his representation has been disposed of
by passing a cryptic order. On a close scrutiny of the
impugned order dated 09.02.2026, this Court observed that
the real issue involved in the dispute has not been addressed
by the Opposite Party No.3 while disposing of the
representation of the Petitioner. It further appears that
although the Petitioner, referring to the G.A. Department
resolution, has claimed a day's leave in every week as has
been allowed by the State Government, however, the
Opposite Party No.3 while considering the representation of
the Petitioner has not dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the
matter. In view of the aforesaid position, further on a close
scrutiny of order dated 09.02.2026, this Court is of the view
that the aforesaid impugned order is not in conformity with
the order passed by this Court on 03.04.2025 in W.P.(C)
No.6408 of 2025. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in
setting aside the order dated 09.02.2026 at Annexure-8.
Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.
11. Further the matter is remanded back to the Opposite
Party No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner afresh and
dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reason order
taking into consideration the grounds raised by the Petitioner,
particularly the resolution of the G.A. Department dated
30.05.1996. The representation of the Petitioner shall be
disposed of within eight weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order by passing a speaking and reasoned
order and such final order be communicated to the Petitioner
within ten days thereafter.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
