IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1111 of 2025 W.A. No.509 of 2025 W.A. No.558 of 2025 W.A. No.560 of 2025 W.A. No.566 of 2025 & W.A. No. 568 of 2025 In the matter of Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948. ----------- W.A. Nos.1111, 509, 558, 560, 566 & 568 of 2025 1. State of Odisha, represented through its Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department & others … Appellants -Versus- Pradip Kumar Mohanty (W.A. No.1111 of 2025) Dhruba Charan Naik (W.A. No.509 of 2025) Pramod Kumar Baral (W.A. No.558 of 2025) Mamata Swain (W.A. No.560 of 2025) Smt. Urmila Dhall (W.A. No.566 of 2025) Sarat Kumar Satapathy (W.A. No.568 of 2025) … Respondent Advocates who have Appeared in this case For Appellants - Mr.Umesh Chandra Behura Addl. Govt. Advocate For Respondents - Mr.K.C. Sahu (In WA No.1111/2025) Mr.D.N. Rath (In WA No.509/2025) Mr.S.K. Das (In WA Nos.558 & 560 of 2025) Ms.S. Patnaik (In WA No.566/2025) Mr.K.C. Sahu (In WA No.568/2025) CORAM : MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 25.06.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J. In all these appeals, challenge is by the State is to the orders of a learned Single Judge, whereby the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondent-employees having been favoured, their removal from service as Teachers has been set at naught coupled with a direction of reinstatement. The lead case was W.P.(C) No.11614 of 2023 and the order made therein is in companion W.A. No.509 of 2025. Page 3 of 6 2. Learned AGA-Mr. Behura appearing for the Appellant-State very effectively submits that the impugned order of learned Single Judge is contrary to the decision of Odisha Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1090 of 2003 decided on 24.07.2007, which came to be affirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.13452 of 2007 disposed off on 21.04.2010. However, he fairly adds that an opportunity was given to the removed employees in those cases for making a representation seeking redressal of their grievance. Therefore, according to him there is error apparent on the face of the record, in ignoring the reasoning of Co-ordinate Bench, which had affirmed the order of Tribunal, whereby the Teachers concerned were removed from service. Learned counsels appearing for the Respondent-employees resist the petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been structured. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 3.1. W.P.(C) No.11614 of 2023 between Dhruba Charan Naik v. State of Odisha and Others came to be disposed off by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.10.2023 in favour of the employee concerned. That order has been implemented by the Appellants herein vide Office Order dated 31.10.2023, which reads as under: “OFFICE ORDER Kalimela Dated31/10/2023 No.2362/2023 In the disposal order dtd 03.10.2023 of Honourable High Court Odisha Cuttack in the W.P.(C) No.11614 of 2023 Dhruba Chandra Naik Vrs. State, W.P.(C0 No.11615 of 2023-Ramesh Chandra Paital vrs. State and some other similar cases have been adjudicated and order No.1313/2023 dated 03.04.2023 of the District Education Officer, Malkangiri has been quashed. In the light of the aforesaid order passed in connected with W.P.(C) No.11614 of 2023 direction in letter No.23482 dtd 27.10.2023 of the director of Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and in letter No.4338/2023 dtd 30.10.2023 of the Dist. Education officer, Malkangiri SRI DHRUBA CHARAN NAIK who was terminated from his services obeying the direction in order No.1313/2023 dated 03.04.2023 of the District Education officer, Malkangiri and vide this office order No.589/2023 dated 13.04.2023 is here by re- instated and allowed to continue in this services at the same school where he was working previously with immediate effect.” Learned counsels appearing for the Respondent-employees rightly submit that once the State unconditionally implements orders of the Writ Court without reserving the right to lay challenge to the same, ordinarily subsequent challenge is not entertainable in view of the doctrine of waiver. They are also right in pointing out that the implementation of the order has not been pleaded in the appeal memo, when the fairness required such a plea. Page 5 of 6 3.2. The orders in the companion appeals are structured on the basis of order dated 03.10.2023 made in Dhruba Charan Naik supra. Therefore, that becomes the leading case, which has been followed by the learned Single Judge on the principle of parity, there being nothing repugnant in the pleadings of parties. The Government, having implemented the order at its sweet will that too unconditionally, abruptly cannot turn around to assail the same. That would virtually amount to blowing hot and cold, which is not ordinarily permissible in a Welfare State, as has been discussed by Apex Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234 Even otherwise, we find from the record that all these teachers have already put in more than two decades of continuous service with no complaint whatsoever. It is not right on the part of Welfare State to abruptly put an end to the services of poor employees of the kind only on the ground that in some other case the removal of similar employees has been upheld by judicial decisions. It hardly needs to be stated that in service matters there is nothing like judgment in rem, all orders being in presonam. The action of the State is bereft of elements of justice. 3.3. Learned counsels appearing for the employees notify to us long delay in each one of these matters, the highest number of days being 484 days in the lead case, i.e., W.A. No. 509 of 2025. We do not find any plausible explanation for the long delay brooked that too having implemented one of the orders made by the learned Single judge, who followed the same for deciding the other cases. The impugned orders have brought about a just result in the matter. In the above circumstances, these appeals are liable to be dismissed both on merits and on delay coupled with a direction to the Appellant-State & its officials to implement the impugned orders of learned Single Judge, if already not implemented. It hardly needs to be stated that in the cases wherein the age of retirement has already been attained, the terminal benefits of such employees are to be extended within an outer limit of eight weeks. Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court The 25nd Day of June, 2026 / Madhusmita Designation: Jr. Stenographer