p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.22142, 22139 and 22141 of 2010 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. -------------- W.P.(C) No.22142 of 2010 Dhiren Kumar Sahoo and others …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioners - M/s. Jaydev Sengupta, A. Mishra, G. Sinha & D.K. Panda, Advocates For Opp. Parties - Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA W.P.(C) No.22139 of 2010 Pabitra Kumar Rout and others …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioners - M/s. D.R. Mohapatra, B. Pasayat & T.S. Nayak, Advocates For Opp. Parties - Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA W.P.(C) No.22141 of 2010 Prasanna Kumar Gawn and others …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties p. 2 Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioners - M/s. D.R. Mohapatra, B. Pasayat & T.S. Nayak, Advocates For Opp. Parties - Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA ----------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 12.02.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J. Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Common Order dated 26.03.2009, whereby their O.A. Nos. 2984(C)/06, 174(C)/07, 175(C)/07, 176(C)/07, 177(C)/07, 178(C)/07, 179(C)/07, 870(C)/05 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench: “8. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances, we direct that the applicants’ service would commence as members of the cadre from today and their seniority would be reckoned in accordance with their merit position in the select prepared by the Orissa Staff Selection Commission. Their pay would be fixed under the ORSP Rules applicable as on date and they shall be given all service benefits like regular Government servants. No arrears would be paid. In so far as inter se seniority between these applicants and those who have been appointed on regular basis in the mean time, that would be governed by the existing rules for determining inter se seniority. The period of service rendered by the applicants from the date of their actual joining till regular appointment shall count as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners vehemently submits that once the Tribunal was convinced that the Petitioners gained entry to p. 3 public service in a normative way, there is no justification for denying the benefit of regular service for the period preceding their approaching the Tribunal. He points out that the Petitioners had staked their claim for appointment pursuant to advertisement dated 26.06.1998 for the post of Junior Assistant; the selection process they underwent and only thereafter, they have been issued appointment orders; their services are eminently required and there is no complaint whatsoever. 3. Learned AGA appearing for the OPs opposes the petitions with equal vehemence contending that the appointment of Petitioners itself was not sustainable; during the relevant period the financial austerity measures were in operation: whatever relief the Tribunal has accorded to them is more than what they are entitled to; the Tribunal has worked out a golden balance between competing interests of Parties and equities in the case; therefore interference of this Court is uncalled for. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: 4.1. The Tribunal at Paragraphs-5 & 6 of the impugned order has observed as under: “5. To know the actual intention of the Government, the relevant file was requisitioned. We have perused the file. We do not find any policy decision to have been taken by the p. 4 Government. Even the respondents in their counter have taken the stand that a policy decision was taken with regard to contractual appointment. The learned Govt. Advocate sought to explain the use of this expression by referring to the guidelines of the Finance Department and stating that the instructions issued on austerity measures were taken as policy decision of the Government. At pages 56-57 of the note sheet in the file, this question was discussed by the Special Secretary, Finance and it appears that his opinion prevailed and the matter was finally taken to the policy making level for final concurrence. The noting of the Special Secretary, Finance dt.13.8.03 at pages 56-57 is reproduced below: “It may be recalled that the Finance Department was receiving a large number of representations from candidates who have been sponsored by the Orissa Staff Selection Commission for appointment as Jr. Asst. in various heads of departments. Such candidates were not being issued appointment orders in view of a decision taken by Government to abolish filling up of post of Jr. Asst. in Secretariat and heads of departments. After careful consideration Government orders were obtained to seek a one time dispensation and fill up posts of Jr. Assts only in respect of the 66 candidates who are sponsored for appointment by the Staff Selection Commission at a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/~ per month. In pursuance of such a decision Finance Department has already accorded concurrence for filling up 10 posts in respect of files received from two heads of departments.” 6. The brazen view that a candidate sponsored for appointment by the Orissa Staff Selection Commission can have no right for appointment is to be read in the context of fact. The concerned authority should have taken into account the fact that vacancies were publicly advertised, examinations were held, dossiers had been forwarded, reasonable expectations arose and when that was the situation, to issue appointment orders with inferior terms and conditions without any prospect of encadrement on a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per month is nothing but a sheer arbitrariness of the concerned authority. We do not see any justification in the action exercised by the Special Secretary, Finance to take a final decision at his own level as if he was arrogating himself the power of Government. We find no justification to deprive the applicants of the regular scale of pay as per the advertisement in the guise of austerity measure.” 4.2. When the Tribunal found the stand of Respondent- Department to be defective, it could not have denied full relief to the Petitioners with p. 5 effect from the date of their entry into Service. Be that as it may, years having rolled, now some equities have to be worked out for the Government also as rightly contended by learned AGA. No prejudice would be caused to the OPs if notional benefit of service is accorded to the Petitioners without burdening the State with financial obligation. The Tribunal has not accorded any reason as to why this could not be done. There are no extraordinary circumstances for fixing the cut-off date in an arbitrary manner. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions succeed in part; the Petitioners shall be entitled to notional benefit of service with effect from respective dates of their initial entry into service. However, they shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the said period. It is made clear that except financial benefits all other will be available including seniority & counting of service. Now, no costs. Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 12th day of February 2026/Anisha Designation: Jr. Stenographer