Partly allowed

B. Manoj Kumar Rao v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Dec 2022WP(C)/34601/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa directed the State to reimburse the differential minimum wages due to a Special Class Contractor as per a Government Notification. The court quashed impugned orders rejecting the claim, relying on preceding precedents, and directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation within seven days.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was directed to file a representation within seven days.

B. Manoj Kumar Rao Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.34601 of 2022

¶3

B. Manoj Kumar Rao ..……. Petitioner Mr. Nilakantha Jujharsingh, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & others

¶6

..…….. Opp. Parties Mr. D. Nayak,

¶7

Addl. Government Advocate

¶8

Order No.

¶9

¶10

CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
20.12.2022
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶11

2. Heard Mr. Nilakantha Jujharsingh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

¶12

3. The petitioner is a Special Class Contractor, engaged by the opposite party No.5 for execution of the work in terms of the agreement. It may be noted that the agreement was signed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Gajapati,

¶13

Paralakhemundi- opposite party No.5.

¶14

¶15

4. The petitioner has, by means of this writ petition, urged this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party No.5 to reimburse the differential amount for enhancement of minimum wages in terms of the Notification No.1991 dated 30.10.2018, Annexure-5 to this writ petition.

¶16

5. Mr. Jujharsingh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a reference to the decision of this Court in Mahesh Prasad

¶17

Mishra vs. State of Orissa & others , reported in 2012 (Supp.-I) OLR-1035 . It has been observed in Mahesh Prasad Mishra (supra) thus: “8. In view of the aforesaid statement of law which has been declared by the Supreme Court and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Suryamani Nayak and another Division Bench in Surendranath Kanungo v. State of Orissa and M/s. Niligiri Corporation Society Ltd. (supra), the claim of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Division Bench. Therefore, the same shall be applied to the fact situation and relief be granted. In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court which has been followed by this Court in the aforesaid cases, the stand taken by the State justifying the impugned order cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for payment of price escalation/enhancement of rate of wages of labour and materials vide Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed and

¶18

¶19

is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Direction is given to the opposite parties to pay the enhanced rate of wages of labour component under the agreement as per Govt. Notification dated 13.7.2009 under Annexure-2.”

¶20

6. Mr. Jujharsingh, learned counsel has submitted that the similar direction may be passed by this Court.

¶21

7. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate referring to the representation filed by the petitioner on 29.08.2022, Annexure9 to the writ petition, has contended the said representation will be taken care of, but it will be expedient, if the petitioner files a fresh representation cataloguing the wages on different points of time and accounting the differential amount that will accrue in terms of the Notification dated 30.10.2018.

¶22

8. Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶23

We direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation laying down the details of the claim within a period of seven days from today. At the same time, we direct the opposite parties No.2 & 5 in particular to consider the representation, as filed by the petitioner including the fresh one and reimburse the differential wages in terms

¶24

¶25

of the Notification No.1991 dated 30.10.2018, Annexure-5 to the writ

¶26

petition.

¶27

9. The entire exercise shall be completed by the opposite parties Nos.2 & 5 within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the

¶28

representation from the petitioner.

¶29

10. There shall be no order as to cost.

¶30

(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge

¶31

Subhasis

B. Manoj Kumar Rao v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Manoj Kumar Rao v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Jhansirani Patro Vs v. Rabindranath Patro

Shashi Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Damodar Sahu and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Animesh Chakraborty Vs State of Odisha

B.Manoj Kumar Rao Vs State of Odisha

Gyana Ranjan Moharatha Vs State of Odisha