2025 Supreme(Ori) 150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, CJ, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
State of Odisha - Appellant
Versus
Satyashri Mohapatra S/o Umesh Chandra Mohapatra - Respondent
WA No. 489 of 2025, I.A. No. 1182 of 2025
Decided On : 24-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Discrimination in Employment Practices
Act Referred
orissa Engineering Service Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules: R.4(9), R.7
Headnote
(B) Fundamental Rights - Right to Equality - The denial of equal treatment in service benefits constitutes a violation of the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 8.4)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, employed as an NMR/DLR Graduate Engineer, was discriminated against during the regularization process, unlike his nine counterparts in similar positions. His employment approval was sanctioned by the government, aligning with existing regulations for similar roles.
Findings of Court:
The single bench's ruling to regularize the respondent's service along with his counterparts was deemed proper, ensuring equal treatment in accordance with prior orders and regulations.
Issues: The court focused on the unfair treatment of the respondent compared to his peers and whether the difference in the treatment was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity of uniform policies in employment regularization, emphasizing that similar cases must be treated equally under the established legal framework to avoid discrimination.
Result: Appeal dismissed, judgment of the learned Single Bench upheld.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Saswat Das
For the Respondents: Prafulla Kumar Rath, Rudra Narayan Parija, L. Behera
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and procedural history (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments from the appellant and respondent (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis and observations on the case (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. legal reasoning and principles guiding the decision (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of the court (Para 11) |
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
1. Assailed in the writ appeal filed at the instance of the functionary of the Government of Odisha in Water Resources Department is the Judgment dated 28.10.2024 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14996 of 2024, beseeching the following relief(s):
“Under these circumstances, the Appellants most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Appeal, call for the records and after hearing the parties be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.14996 of 2024 vide Annexure-3.
And be further pleased to pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper.
And for this act of kindness, the appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
FACTS
2. Facts leading to filing of this writ appeal as adumbrated by the appellant-Water Resources Department and undisputed factual matrix depicted in the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge are described infra.
2.1. Appointed to work as NMR/DLR Graduate Engineer under the Department of Water Resources, the Petitioner in writ petition, arrayed as Respondent No.1 herein, along with nine other Civil Graduate NMRs/DLRs were engaged against regular vacant posts of Assistant Engineer on 27.02.2004.
2.2. Considering contentions and grievance in the petition, registered as WP(C) No.1748 of 2007, this Court disposed of vide Order dated 17.07.2012 in respect of nine writ petitioners (other than respondent No.1) with an observation that pendency of the writ petition would not be a bar for consideration of the case of the nine petitioners therein for the post of Work Charged Assistant Engineers. Accordingly, their services were brought over to the work charged establishment to perform as Assistant Engineers vide Notification dated 8th February, 2013 of the Department of Water Resources, except respondent No.1. Therefore, being discriminated, respondent No.1 approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, registered as O.A. No.2415(C) of 2015, which stood disposed of vide Order dated 03.03.2017 with the following observation:
“***
5. Considering the submissions, we note that the issue with regard to appointment/regularization of the NMR graduate engineers is pending adjudication in the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.1748/2007. However, as per liberty given by the Hon'ble High Court, respondent authorities have brought nine graduate engineers to work charged establishment vide order at Annexure-7 as those NMR/DLR employees were engaged prior to 12.04.1993. Government vide their letter dated 5.6.1993 as at Annexure-9 have reiterated their earlier view that the ban imposed by the Government for engagement of NMR/DLR employees is to be followed strictly but with an exception that where it is considered necessary such recruitment shall be made with prior approval of the Government. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the instruction of the Government is extracted as follows:-
Similarly, a ban has also been imposed for engagement of N.M.R./D.L.R./H.R. or by whatever nomenclature they may be called in his department letter no.14300 dated 18.4.1990 and No.33956 dated 13.9.90. It was made clear in the Department letter No.2670 dated 28.1.1991 that if it is considered necessary for engagement of any such worker, prior approval of Government before engaging the N.M.Rs should be taken. In spite of this, it has come to the notice of the Government that such engagement still continue without prior approval of Government.
In view of the above position