Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27187 (ORI)

State Of Odisha v. Braja Kishore Das

2026-02-05

Chittaranjan Dash, Dixit Krishna Shripad

body2026
JUDGMENT : Chittaranjan Dash , J. 1. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the Appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 25066 of 2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the sole Opposite Party came to be allowed. 2. Mr. U.C. Behura, learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the scope and import of the earlier proceedings initiated by the Respondent in O.A. No. 2244(C) of 1999. It was contended that the learned Tribunal, by order dated 21.03.2001, had merely directed that in the event any vacancy which had arisen prior to 12.08.1997, earmarked for the General Category (Male), remained available in Jajpur-II Education District, the applicant may be considered for appointment subject to fulfillment of the stipulated conditions. According to him, the said direction was conditional and did not confer any indefeasible right upon the Respondent to claim appointment from an anterior date. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge, while quashing the order of the competent authority rejecting the claim of the Opposite Party, proceeded mechanically and without recording cogent reasons, and directed extension of the benefit granted in favour of Soudamini Nanda in O.A. No. 3096 of 1999, though the factual matrix of that case was distinguishable from that of the present Respondent. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel urged that the impugned judgment warrants interference and is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the sole Respondent, refuted the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants and contended that the Opposite Party stands on an identical footing with Soudamini Nanda. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge, upon due consideration of the materials on record and the earlier directions of the Tribunal, rightly concluded that the claim of the Opposite Party could not be distinguished from that of the said Soudamini Nanda. According to him, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, requiring the Appellants to extend to the Opposite Party the same benefit as had been extended in favour of Soudamini Nanda in O.A. No. 3096 of 1999, is legally sound and does not warrant interference in the present intra-court appeal. 4. According to him, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, requiring the Appellants to extend to the Opposite Party the same benefit as had been extended in favour of Soudamini Nanda in O.A. No. 3096 of 1999, is legally sound and does not warrant interference in the present intra-court appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge, upon an examination of the record and the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2244(C) of 1999, held that the Tribunal had categorically observed that the claim of the writ petitioner stood on the same footing as that of Soudamini Nanda and had directed consideration of his case accordingly. Noticing that, notwithstanding such finding, the competent authority rejected the claim by treating the petitioner as dissimilarly situated, the learned Single Judge found the impugned administrative order unsustainable in law. Consequently, the order dated 05.08.2022 was quashed and a direction was issued to extend to the petitioner the same benefit as had been granted in favour of Soudamini Nanda, within the stipulated time, as follows: “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Tribunal while deciding the claim of the Petitioner with regard to antedate his appointment to 17.11.1998 clearly held that the claim of the petitioner's stand on the similar footing as that of Saudamini Nanda. While holding so, the Tribunal directed the Opp. Parties to consider the claim of the petitioner. On the face of such finding of the learned Tribunal, as reflected in its order under Annexure 12, this Court finds from the impugned order that Opp Party No.3 has taken a stand that the petitioner is not similarly situated as like Saudamini Nanda. In view of such stand taken by Opp. Party No 3 while passing the impugned order, this Court is inclined to interfere with the said order. While interfering with the same, this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 5.08.2022 under Annexure-13. While quashing the same, this court directs Opp. Party No.3 to extend the benefit as has been extended in favour of Saudamini Nanda vide order dated 20.02.2010. Such a fresh exercise shall be undertaken and appropriate order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.” 5. While quashing the same, this court directs Opp. Party No.3 to extend the benefit as has been extended in favour of Saudamini Nanda vide order dated 20.02.2010. Such a fresh exercise shall be undertaken and appropriate order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials appended to the appeal as well as the settled legal position, we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment for the following reasons: i. The writ petitioner, who was initially engaged as a Non-Formal Instructor in the year 1995 under the Appellants, was duly considered for selection to the post of Primary School/M.E. School Teacher. His name found place in the merit list prepared by the District Inspector of Schools, Jajpur-II, on 27.02.1997. It is not in dispute that he possessed the requisite educational qualifications and had undergone the necessary training, rendering him eligible for appointment. Despite such eligibility and empanelment, he was not appointed, and no justifiable reason has been forthcoming from the authorities to explain such non-appointment. ii. The plea of absence of vacancy, as advanced by the Appellants, does not withstand scrutiny. The record reveals that vacancies in substantive posts were available, and similarly situated candidates, including Soudamini Nanda, who was extended the benefit pursuant to Order No. 531 dated 20.02.2010 in compliance with the Tribunal’s direction in O.A. No. 3096 of 1999, were granted appointment. The materials further disclose that the non- consideration of the Opposite Party was attributable to the illegal and irregular actions of the immediate authorities, namely the District Inspector of Schools and the Inspector of Schools, who were subsequently subjected to departmental action by the Government (Annexure-8). When the deprivation of appointment is demonstrably traceable to administrative impropriety on the part of responsible officials, the affected candidate cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his own. 6. Needless to say that Courts have frequently ruled that employers cannot denied benefits to a group of employees, if those same benefits were granted to others in a similar position. 6. Needless to say that Courts have frequently ruled that employers cannot denied benefits to a group of employees, if those same benefits were granted to others in a similar position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Munshi Ram , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 891 reiterated the principle that employees working under the same employer, though posted in different Zones or Divisions, cannot be subjected to differential treatment in the matter of service benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where the employer is common, parity in treatment is mandatory and discrimination inter se among similarly situated employees is impermissible. The relevant observations in paragraphs 7 and 8 read as follows: “7. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the railways are under the very same employer- Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16 zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the same employer-railway Board working in different zones/ divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination inter-se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/ Bearers working in the Northern Railway entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all similarly situated Commission Vendors/ Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/ parameters with respect to similarly situated employees - Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer. 8. The Railways/ UOI/ Railway Board cannot be permitted to repeat the same arguments which were raised before different Tribunals, High Courts and also before this court. Under the circumstances, the respondents Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern railway shall also be entitled to the same benefits which the other Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions are held to be entitled to. There cannot be discrimination among the similarly situated Commission Vendors/ Bearers. To deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India” 7. The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the case at hand. There cannot be discrimination among the similarly situated Commission Vendors/ Bearers. To deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India” 7. The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the case at hand. When the Opposite Party and Soudamini Nanda stand on identical factual and legal footing, the State, being a model employer, cannot adopt divergent standards so as to confer the benefit upon one and deny it to the other. The principle that similarly situated persons must receive similar treatment is foundational to the guarantee of equality before the law. “Like should be treated alike” is the guiding rule. Arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination between individuals in similar circumstances such as in pay, benefits or promotions is unconstitutional. Such discrimination would offend the constitutional mandate of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement and the factual parity established on record, we find ourselves in broad agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10. The Appellants shall comply with the directions issued passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 25066 of 2022 vide order dated 24.03.2023, within a period of two months.