IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2953 of 2024 Krushna Chandra Dalabehera …. Appellant Mr. U. Sahoo, AGA -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Respondents Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 10.03.2026 03. This Intra-Court Appeal by a regularized employee calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 10.09.2024, whereby his Writ Petition No.19389 of 2024 seeking a direction for payment of remuneration during the period between 03.05.2014 and 05.03.2020 has been negatived. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently argues that the Government’s order dated 04.01.2024 and 05.01.2024 respectively at Annexures-9 & 11 to the Writ Petition were thoroughly contrary to law; they have the effect of violating the principle of equal pay for equal work; there are several other circulars & orders of the Government for making payment of remuneration even in cases of the kind. That being the position, p. 2 counsel argues, that learned single Judge grossly erred and therefore, interference of this Court is eminently warranted. He took us through the lead judgment in W.P.(C) No. 31679 of 2011 between Dhananjay Charan Dey vs. State of Orissa decided by another learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.03.2020; the said order was confirmed at the hands of Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Appeal No.10 of 2021 decided on 02.02.2021, which the State challenged in SLP No.13627 of 2021 and was negatived vide order dated 25.01.2023. 3. Mr. Mohanty, learned AGA makes submissions in justification of the impugned order drawing our attention to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the SLP No.13627 of 2021 and also the possible training of the exchequer if remuneration is given to one such employee, there having been totally 618 others. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter on the following grounds: 4.1 Petitioner’s W.P.(C) No.22566 of 2020 for regularization of service was decided by another learned Single Judge of this p. 3 Court vide order dated 25.09.2020 in the light of the lead judgment in W.P.(C) No.31679 of 2011, is not in dispute. That being challenged by the State in Writ Appeal No.10 of 2021, secured its approval because of Appeal’s dismissal on 02.02.2021. Matter went to Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.13627 of 2021 filed by the State, and was dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2023. When a person takes an order under the shadow of the lead judgment, he has to take it subject to what would happen to the lead judgment in further challenge, whether he is a party to that or not. Obviously, he was not a party. 4.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while negating State’s SLP No.13627 of 2021 vide order dated 25.01.2023 has observed as under:- “23. In view of such position, the absorption of 619 eligible trained graduate teachers as Sikshya Sahayaks, pursuant to resolution dated 17.11.2011 in Annexure-6, cannot sustain in the eye of law and they should be absorbed as Sikshya Sahayaks w.e.f. 03.05.2008, pursuant to resolution dated 16.02.2008 under Annexure-2 and extended all the benefits of regularization of service after three years of completion of service as junior teacher on 03.05.2011 and thereafter regular teacher w.e.f. 03.05.2014 and also entitled to get all the benefits as admissible to the post of Sikshya Sahayak.” p. 4 4.3. We notice from above observation, the apprehension expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court about the numerical strength of senior employees i.e. 619 minus the Appellant herein and the likely financial consequences of the exchequer, if remunerative benefits were extended to all of them. Added, counsel for the Appellant in all fairness told us that no representation was made by his client seeking regularization and decision to regularize was taken by the Ministers and also Secretaries of the department later. 4.4. The vehement submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court cannot be treated like Euclid’s Theorem, at the first blush appears to be very attractive. However, a deeper examination of the same robs of such attraction. The Hon’ble Apex Court has noted the submissions of the learned Advocate General, who had represented case of the State in SLP No.13627 of 2021. True it is that no law is as such declared for depriving the employees of the remuneration during the relevant period i.e. 03.05.2014 to 05.03.2020. However, the denial of remunerative benefit by the learned Single Judge is in terms of Government’s order dated 04.01.2024 at Annexure-9 and 05.01.2024 at Annexure-11 to the p. 5 Writ Petition, which have been issued in terms of the Hon’ble Apex Court order. This fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant before us on being specifically asked. In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer