Orissa High Court
Niranjan Patri vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opp. Parties on 8 August, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.21567, 21565 & 21566 of 2022
W.P.(C) No.21567 of 2022
Niranjan Patri .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mallik, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 08.08.2025
12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Since the issue involved in all the three Writ Petitions is identical, all the Writ Petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
4. All these Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia with the similar prayer which reads as follows:-
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to;
I. Quash the order dtd.17.02.2022 as at Annexure-12.
II. Direct / Order that the position of the applicant as work charge khalasi as conferred under order No.2249 dt.2.7.2009 shall be maintained and the consequential benefits shall be released and paid to the applicant // 2 // within a stipulated period as maybe fixed by this Hon'ble Court by quashing the order reposting him to NMR position.
III. Pass such other orders as maybe deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21567 of 2022 was engaged as NMR on 02.12.1992, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21565 of 2022 on 01.02.1993 and Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21566 of 2022 on 02.01.1992.
5.1. It is contended that since all the Petitioners were engaged prior to 12.04.1993 i.e. the cut-off date fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dtd.15.05.1997, basing on the decisions taken by the Government, all the Petitioners were brought over to the work charged establishment vide office order dtd.02.07.2009 under Annexure-7 as Khalasi. Names of Petitioner No.1 finds place at Sl. No.6 in respect of HP Division, Bhubaneswar, Petitioner No.2 at Sl. No.2 in respect of Executive Engineer Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar and Petitioner No.3 at S.L. No.4 in DWS & Division, Rayagada.
5.2. It is contended that after being so brought over, Petitioners joined in the work charged establishment along with others who were also brought over to the work charged establishment vide order dtd.02.07.2009 under Annexure-7. However, while continuing as such, when a fresh brought over order was passed on 25.07.2009 under Annexure-9, Petitioners' name were not included in Page 2 of 7 // 3 // the said list and they were reverted as NMR vide order dtd.27.07.2009 under Annexure-10 in all the Writ Petitions.
5.3. It is contended that since Petitioners were all engaged prior to 12.04.1993 and basing on the decision taken by the Department, all were brought over to the work charged establishment vide order dtd. 02.07.2009 under Annexure-7, they could not have been reverted as NMR on the ground indicated in order dtd.27.07.2009 under Annexure-10.
5.4. It is contended that the Petitioners challenging such action of the Opposite Parties approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing different Original Applications. The said O.As on being transferred were disposed of by this Court with a direction on the authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioners in the light of the order passed in the case of one similarly situated employee, namely Niranjan Tripathy, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014.
5.5. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014, Petitioner therein Niranjan Tripathy, whose name finds place in order dtd.2.7.2009 at Sl.No.7 in respect of Executive Engineer Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar, was extended with the benefit of order dtd.02.07.2009 vide office order dtd.05.02.2019. But claim of the Petitioners was rejected Page 3 of 7 // 4 // vide order dtd.17.02.2022 under Annexure-12 in all those Writ Petitions. (Copy of the office order dtd.05.02.2019 so produced in Court be kept in record).
5.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that since the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014, who was also reverted as NMR along with the Petitioners after being brought over to the work charged establishment vide order dtd.02.07.2009, was allowed to continue with the benefit of order dtd.02.07.2009 vide order dtd.05.02.2019, claim of the Petitioners could not have been rejected vide order dtd.17.02.2022 on the ground indicated in Annexure-12.
5.7. It is accordingly contended that Petitioners are also eligible and entitled to continue with the benefit of order dtd.02.07.2009, so extended in favour of the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014, with quashing of the impugned order dtd.17.02.2022 in these batch of cases.
6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand contended that, since after being brought over to the work charged establishment vide order dtd.02.07.2009, it was found that the present Petitioners are not eligible to get the said benefits, a fresh order was passed on 25.07.2009 under Annexure-9, by not including the names of the present Petitioners. Thereafter vide order dtd.27.07.2009 under Annexure-10, the present Petitioners were reverted to work as NMRs.
Page 4 of 7// 5 // 6.1. It is contended that even though this Court directed for consideration of the claim of the Petitioners in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014 under Annexure-11 and compliance order dtd.05.02.2019 passed in the case of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014, but Petitioners are not similarly situated as like the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014.
6.2. It is also contended that office order dtd.05.02.2019 has been passed subject to outcome of the SLP filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is not a final order. It is accordingly contended that Petitioners' claim has been rightly rejected.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that all the Petitioners which is not disputed are engaged as NMRs prior to 12.04.1993 i.e. the cut-off date fixed by the Finance Department in its resolution dtd.15.05.1997. As further found, Petitioners basing on the decisions taken by the Government, were brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 01.03.2009 vide office order dtd.02.07.2009 under Annexure-7. After being so brought over to the work charged establishment vide order dtd.02.07.2009, a fresh order was passed on 25.07.2009 under Annexure-9, wherein Petitioners' name were not shown and subsequently vide order Page 5 of 7 // 6 // dtd.27.07.2009 under Annexure-10, Petitioners were reverted as NMRs.
7.1. Even though such order of reversion was challenged by the present Petitioners by filing separate Original Applications before the Tribunal, which were transferred to this Court and this Court directed for consideration of their claim in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014 and implementation thereof vide order dtd.05.02.2019, vide order dtd.15.11.2021, but claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide order dtd.17.02.2022 under Annexure-12 in all the three Writ Petitions.
7.2. It is found from the record that Petitioners along with the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014 were reverted as NMR after being brought over to the work charged establishment vide order dtd.02.07.2009. However, basing on the order passed in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014, Petitioner therein was allowed to continue with the benefit of order dtd.02.07.2009, vide office order dtd.05.02.2019. Since persons similarly situated has been allowed to continue with the benefit of order dtd.02.07.2009, rejection of the Petitioners' claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order dtd.17.02.2022 under Annexure-12 in each of the cases, as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Page 6 of 7// 7 // 7.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.17.02.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 in all the three Writ Petitions. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2, to extend similar benefits as has been extended in favour of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25696 of 2014 vide order dtd.05.02.2019. Such a fresh order be passed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
9. Photo copy of the order be placed in connected cases.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 16:27:55 Page 7 of 7