IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7763 of 2023 Rajani Kanta Srichandan …. Petitioner Ms. P.P. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Company Ltd., Ganjam & Anr. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. for O.P.1 Mr. M.R. Dhal, Adv. for O.P.2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 18.03.2026 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Therefore, it is prayed that, the writ petition may be admitted, the records may be called for and after hearing the parties the same maybe allowed; BY Quashing the order under Annexure-7 and8; AND By granting any other relief(s) as found fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner was engaged as Technician Apprentice vide order dtd.25.09.2004 so issued by the then Southco under Annexure-1. In terms of the said order, Petitioner was given a posting vide order dtd.04.10.2004 under Annexure-2. Not only that Petitioner was allotted with a quarter vide order dtd.18.06.2005 under Annexure-4. However, while so continuing and undergoing the training, because of the illness of his father, who ultimately expired in the year 2017, Petitioner could not discharge his duty from the year 2005, till he made an application before Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-5 on 26.04.2018, with a prayer to allow him to rejoin. 4.1. It is also contended that Southco utility vide letter dtd.05.04.2019 under Annexure-6 while forwarding the representation of the Petitioner for consideration though observed that one such similarly situated employee has been favourably considered by the authorities of GRIDCO, but without proper appreciation of such observation made in the communication under Annexure-6, claim of the Petitioner was rejected by Opposite Party No.2 by a non-speaking order on 04.01.2020 under Annexure-7, so implemented by Southco vide order dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since because of the illness of his father, he could not discharge his duty for the period from 2005 to 2018, and person similarly situated has got the benefit of re-engagement so reflected in Annexure-6, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim by Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.04.01.2020 under Annexure-7 and consequential order dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8 and that too without assigning any reason are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. It is contended that since Petitioner was formally appointed by the then Southco in the year 2004 and because of compelling circumstances, he could not discharge his duty for the period involved, claim of the Petitioner could have been favourably considered in the light of the benefit extended in favour of one Kanhu Charan Behera, so reflected in Annexure-6. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that since Opposite Party No.1 is now competent to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, Opposite Party No.1 be directed to take a fresh decision by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. 5. Mr. A.K. Mishra and Mr. M.R. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 however contended that since Petitioner never discharged his duty for around 13 years on the ground of the illness of his father and that too without making any intimation, claim of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected by Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.04.01.2020 under Annexure-7 and by the then Southco vide order dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a Technician Apprentice vide order issued on 25.09.2004 under Annexure-1 of the then Southco. While undergoing the training, Petitioner remained absent w.e.f. 01.09.2005, on the ground of illness of his father and he made a representation only in the year 2018 under Annexure-5 with a prayer to allow him to re-join. Such prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected by Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.04.01.2020 under Annexure-7 and by the then Southco vide order dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8. 6.1. Since the impugned rejection is a non-speaking order and no reason has been assigned, this Court on that ground only is inclined to quash order dtd.04.10.2020 under Annexure-7 and consequential order dtd.05.02.2020 under Annexure-8. While quashing both the orders and taking into account the fact that Opposite Party No.1 has taken charge of the distribution from 01.01.2020, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim taking into account the difficulties pointed out in the representation under Annexure-5 and similar benefits extended in favour of Kanhu Charan Behera so reflected in Annexure-6. 6.2. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. If it will be found that Kanchu Charan Behera is similarly situated and has got the benefit as prayed for by the Petitioner, the same be taken into consideration by Opposite Party No.1. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat