Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.34051 of 2025 Upendra Nayak ..... Petitioner Mr. A.P. Das, Advocate -versus- Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur &Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. N.C. Sahoo, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2) Mr. B.B. Routray, Advocate (Intervenor) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.03.2026 Order No.05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard. 3. Pursuant to order dtd.11.03.2026, Petitioner and the Intervenor- Petitioner appeared in Person along with their respective counsels. 4. The Intervenor-Petitioner who appeared in Person contended that after getting the benefit of appointment on the death of her husband/father of the Petitioner, Petitioner since is not maintaining Intervenor-Petitioner and other family members in terms of the provisions contained under the relevant SOP under NCWA, 30% of the salary of the Petitioner is being paid to Intervenor-Petitioner. However, because of the interim order passed on 29.11.2025, no further deduction has been made. 5. It is contended that since in terms of the SOP, Petitioner is not maintaining the Intervenor-Petitioner/mother and the other family members, deduction of 30% of the salary from the salary of the Petitioner in terms of impugned order dtd.05.11.2025 needs no Page 2 of 3. interference. It is also contended that the Intervenor-Petitioner be permitted to move the authorities of MCL to engage the other son of the deceased employee in place of the Petitioner. 5.1. Petitioner who appeared in Person on the other hand contended that after getting the benefit of appointment on the death of his father, he is taking care of his mother as well as other family members. But at the instance of his elder brother, Intervenor- Petitioner/mother made a false allegation that Petitioner is not managing them and basing on such complaint, the authorities of MCL pursuant to order dtd.05.11.2025 are deducting 30% of his salary and paying the same to the Intervenor-Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner is ready and willing to manage his mother and other family members and he was doing so after getting the benefit of appointment, basing on the false complaint made against him, no deduction could have been made with passing of the impugned order. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order needs interference of this Court. 6. Mr. N.C. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the MCL on the other hand contended that since allegation was made by the Intervenor-Petitioner that Petitioner is not taking care of his mother and other family members, in terms of the SOP and conditions stipulated in the order of appointment, 30% of the Petitioner’s salary was deducted and paid to the Interevenor-Petitioner basing on the impugned order dtd.05.11.2025. However, because of the interim order passed by this Court on 29.11.2025, no further deduction has been made. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner Page 3 of 3. got the benefit of appointment in terms of the SOP so issued by the authorities of MCL. In terms of the said SOP, there is a clear stipulation that if the Petitioner after getting the benefit of appointment, neglects the wife of the deceased employee and his other family members, then 30% of the salary is to be deducted. In terms of the said SOP, vide order dtd.05.11.2025, 30% of the salary was deducted and paid to the Intervenor-Petitioner. 7.1. Considering the stand of the Intervenor-Petitioner that Petitioner is not managing her and other family members and the counter stand of the Petitioner that he is managing and ready to manage the Intervenor-Petitioner and other family members, this Court in view of such disputed question of fact, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and dismiss the same accordingly. 7.2. However, it is observed that if any application is made by the Intervenor-Petitioner/mother of the Petitioner that in place of the Petitioner any other legal heirs of the deceased employee be extended with the benefit, the same be considered in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no opinion. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha