Ajam Ali Khan Vs State of Odisha

1. This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.02.2024 whereby appellant’s case in WPC(OAC) No. 1073 of 2019 has been disposed of reserving liberty to him to make appropriate representation for claiming arrears of salary during the period between 1994 and 2007. A direction is also issued to the answering respondents to consider that representation within a period of three months.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Teacher vehemently argues that in the fitness of things learned Single Judge ought to have mandamused the answering Respondents to release the arrears of salary and this prayer having not been favoured, there is miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court. He further submits that the salary earned by an employee is his property because it is a consideration payable by the management for the blood and sweat an employee sheds during the course of employment. It is more so when the answering respondents happen to be Article 12-entity under the Constitution of India in the light of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority , AIR 1979 SC 1628. Therefore, he seeks a positive direction to the

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

respondents for settling the arrears of salary, after setting aside the impugned order.

¶18

Learned Addl. Government Advocate on request having accepted notice on behalf of answering respondents opposes the petition contending that for seeking a writ of mandamus demand and refusal on the part of authorities is a sine qua non and therefore the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant to make an appropriate representation furnishing all facts and figures and that a direction has also been issued for considering the said representation, within three months, if made. He also points out enormous delay brooked by the employee in making claim of the kind.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, as also the submission made by the learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of official respondents. Learned Single Judge has rightly reserved liberty to the petitioner to make a representation seeking alleged arrears of salary for the subject period. In deciding claims of the kind several aspects need to be examined by the concerned authorities and we cannot undertake such a venture. Suffice it to say that it is open to the employee to explain delay, if any, in making the claim for arrears of salary.

¶20

In the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed off

¶21

with the above observations, costs having been made easy.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: GAYADHAR SAMAL Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jun-2025 19:30:23

¶24

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶25

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶26

GDS

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Ajam Ali Khan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajam Ali Khan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dibakar Patra Vs State of Odisha and Anr.

Sanju Sunani Vs Rajesh Ku.Sunani

Dr.Pradeep Kumar Dhal Vs State of Odisha