IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WA Nos. 609 of 2021 and 413 of 2021

(Appeals under Section-10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court

read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948)

WA No.609 of 2021

1. State of Odisha, represented

through Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department,

Bhubaneswar

2. Deputy Secretary to Government

Housing & Urban Development

Department, Bhubaneswar …. Appellants

-Versus-

Basanta Kumar Mohanty …. Respondent

WA No.413 of 2021

Talcher Municipality, represented through its Executive Officer,

Talcher, Angul

..... Appellant

-Versus-

1. Basanta Kumar Mohanty

..... Respondent

2. State of Odisha, represented

through Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department,

Bhubaneswar,

3. Deputy Secretary to Government

Housing & Urban Development

Department, Bhubaneswar ..... Proforma

Respondents

Advocates appeared:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel (in W.A. No.609 of 2021)

: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Panda, Advocate (in W.A. No.413 of 2021)

For Respondent : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate (W.A. Nos.609 and 413 of 2021)

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

Heard and disposed of on 25.09.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

By the Bench:

1. These Intra-Court appeals have been filed assailing the common judgment dated 18^th March, 2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.14222 of 2019. In WA No.609 of 2021, State of Odisha and its functionaries being the Appellants and in WA No.413 of 2021, the Talcher Municipality being the Appellant challenge the aforesaid judgment.

2. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that W.P.(C) No.14222 of 2019 was filed by the Respondent challenging the Order No.13953/HUD dated 6^th August, 2019 issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha in deputing/deploying the Respondent to Notified Area Council, Hindol (for short, ‘Hindol NAC’) in the district of Dhenkanal. The Respondent was then continuing as Tax Collector under Talcher Municipality. In the writ petition, it was contended by the Petitioner (Respondent in the WAs) that in absence of a State cadre, the Petitioner could not have been deployed to another local body namely, Hindol NAC. Further, the deputation, if any, of the Respondent is also not permissible in absence of any consent from the borrowing Department, i.e., Hindol NAC.

2.1 In the impugned judgment under Annexure-2, learned Single Judge, held as under:

“8. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties, this Court finds, there is no denial to the fact that there is no such cadre namely "Odisha Municipal Finance Service Cadre" as of now, which makes it clear that there is no existence of common cadre. Now coming to the claim of the Parties, this Court finds, so long as common cadre rule is not framed, control over the services of the Petitioners lies on the Municipality and thus while observing that the deputation order involved herein becomes bad, this Court also observes, the Petitioners are deemed to be continuing under the jurisdiction of Talcher Municipality. This Court observes, the impugned order vide Annexure-2 involving all the writ petitions being passed by an Authority outside the Talcher Municipality becomes bad in law. This Court here, taking into account the statement of the State through paragraph nos.5 to 8 of the counter affidavit, finds, the .State Government in its counter affidavit has a clear admission. of not having the cadre namely "Odisha Municipal Finance Service Cadre". In this view of the matter this Court while setting aside the order vide Annexure-2, also sets aside the relieve order involving the Petitioners vide Annexure-3. It is, at this stage of the matter, taking into account the interim order passed on 5.03.2020 where this Court has directed, there shall be no coercive action in