Allowed

Manoj Kumar Moharana v. State of Odisha,Rural Development Dept.

Orissa HC16 Dec 2022WP(C)/9682/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a Special Class Contractor seeking reimbursement for minimum wage enhancements. The Court relied on precedents and directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation. Opposite parties were directed to consider the claim and reimburse the differential wages within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation; opposite parties to reimburse differential wages and complete exercise within six weeks.

Manoj Kumar Moharana Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9682 of 2019

¶3

Sri Manoj Kumar Moharana ..……. Petitioner
Mr. B. Panda, Senior Advocate
Mr. B.B. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ..…….. Opp. Parties
Mr. D. Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
16.12.2022
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. Panda, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by
Mr. B.B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the
State-opposite parties.

¶4

Order No. 03.

¶5

3. The petitioner is a Special Class Contractor, engaged by the opposite party No.3 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, Jajpur.

¶6

¶7

4. The petitioner has, by means of this writ petition, urged this

¶8

Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party No.3 to reimburse the differential amount for enhancement of minimum wages in terms of the Notification No.1942 dated 09.10.2012 or any other notifications, which were in force in the relevant time.

¶9

5. Mr. B. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶10

petitioner has made a reference to the decision of this Court in Mahesh Prasad Mishra vs. State of Orissa & others , reported in 2012 (Supp.-I) OLR-1035 . It has been observed in Mahesh Prasad Mishra (supra) thus:

¶11

“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

¶12

¶13

price escalation/enhancement of rate of wages of labour and materials vide Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed and 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.”

¶14

6. Mr. B. Panda, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the

¶15

similar direction may be passed by this Court.

¶16

7. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate referring to the representations filed by the petitioner on 19.09.2018, Annexure2 series to the writ petition, has contended that those representations 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 09.10.2012 or any other notification on enhancement of the minimum wages.

¶17

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

¶18

We direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation laying

¶19

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 & 3 in

¶20

¶21

particular to consider the representations, as filed by the petitioner including the fresh one and reimburse the differential wages in terms of the Notification No.1942 dated 09.10.2012, Annexure-2 to the writ petition or any other notification enhancing the minimum wages for the period as relevant.

¶22

9. The entire exercise shall be completed by the opposite parties

¶23

Nos.2 & 3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the

¶24

representation from the petitioner.
10. There shall be no order as to cost.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge

¶25

Subhasis

Manoj Kumar Moharana v. State of Odisha,Rural Development Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Moharana v. State of Odisha,Rural Development Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kousalya Majhi Vs the Union of India

Lipan Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Soleelo Kumar Senapati Vs State of Odisha

Damodar Sahu and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Prasanjit Padhi Vs Maitri Satpathy

Kabuli@Anjan Ku.Sahu Vs Rani@Kamala Sahoo