Orissa High Court
Sri Manoj Kumar Moharana vs State Of Odisha & Others .......... Opp. ... on 6 February, 2023
Bench: S. Talapatra, Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2397 of 2023
Sri Manoj Kumar Moharana ......... Petitioner
Mr. Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate
Ms. Upasana Bal, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .......... Opp. Parties
Mr. D. Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
06.02.2023 Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. Basudev Panda, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Upasana Bal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner's father was a contractor engaged by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Jajpur Road for execution of the work in terms of the agreement No.06/PMGSY of 2009-10 for construction and maintenance of the Rural roads. It may be noted that the agreement was also signed by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Division-1, Jajpur, the opposite party No.3. 2
4. The petitioner has, by means of this writ petition, urged this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party No.3 to reimburse the differential amount of wages due to enhancement of minimum wages in terms of the Notification No.972 dated 13.07.2009, Annexure-2 series to this writ petition. Before his death, his father namely Prahallad Moharana, the contractor, whom the petitioner is representing in this writ petition, served a notice on the said Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division-I, Jajpur for payment of enhanced labour wages. Such demand was placed by the notice dated 18.02.2013, followed by the notices dated 19.04.2014 and 18.08.2014. By the communication dated 21.10.2014, the petitioner's father was asked to file the Labour Registration Certificate and Wage Register/relevant records. In response, one further representation dated 30.06.2014 was filed, but without any positive yield. After death of the contractor, the petitioner raised demand for reimbursement of the said deferential by the communication dated 30.06.2014.
5. Mr. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a reference to the decision of this Court in Mahesh Prasad Mishra vs. State of Orissa & others, reported in 3 2012 (Supp.-I) OLR-1035. It has been observed in Mahesh Prasad Mishra (supra) thus:
"8. In view of the aforesaid statement of law which has been declared by the Supreme Court and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Suryamani Nayak and another Division Bench in Surendranath Kanungo v. State of Orissa and M/s. Niligiri Corporation Society Ltd. (supra), the claim of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Division Bench. Therefore, the same shall be applied to the fact situation and relief be granted. In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court which has been followed by this Court in the aforesaid cases, the stand taken by the State justifying the impugned order cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's prayer for payment of price escalation/enhancement of rate of wages of labour and materials vide Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Direction is given to the opposite parties to pay the enhanced rate of wages of labour component under the agreement as per Govt. Notification dated 13.7.2009 under Annexure-2."
6. Mr. Panda, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the similar direction may be passed by this Court.
7. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate referring to the representation filed by the petitioner on 16.02.2018, Annexure- 3 to the writ petition, has contended that the said representation will be taken care of, but it will be expedient, if the petitioner files a fresh representation cataloguing the wages on different points of time and accounting the differential amount that will accrue in terms of the 4 Notification dated 13.07.2009 and the memorandum dated 09.06.2014.
8. Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:
We direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation laying down the details of the claim within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. At the same time, we direct the opposite party No.3 and the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division-I, Jajpur to consider the representation, as contemplated to be filed by the petitioner and reimburse the differential wages in terms of the Notification No.972 dated 13.07.2009, Annexure-2 series to the writ petition.
9. The entire exercise shall be completed by the opposite party No.3 or his delegate officer within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the representation from the petitioner.
10. There shall be no order as to cost.
(S. Talapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhasis 5