Disposed¶7

Kabita Mohapatra v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC20 Jun 2025WP(C)/10250/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sikshya Sahayak service counting from 09.06.2007; Junior Teacher and Regular Teacher benefits from 09.06.2010 and 09.06.2013; advertisement dated 14.10.2006; select list under Annexure-2; order dated 23.04.2014 of Collector, Mayurbhanj (Opposite Party No.3) under Annexure-7 quashed; remand to Opposite Party No.3 for fresh decision within three months; no counter affidavit despite notice issued 25.06.2014; W.P.(C) No. 10250 of 2014; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; order dated 20.06.2025; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.04.2014 under Annexure-7 quashed; matter remitted to Opposite Party No.3 for a fresh decision on the petitioner's claim within three months of receipt of the order; petitioner permitted to furnish a copy of the order along with the orders relied upon.

Kabita Mohapatra Vs State and Ors. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's service as Sikshya Sahayak should be counted from 9.6.2007, i.e., the date of engagement of the other members of the select list under Annexure-2, with consequential service and financial benefits. +2 more

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Placing reliance on the orders produced in Court, this Court quashed the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7.

¶6

Key takeaways

The matter was remitted to Opposite Party No.3 for a fresh decision on the petitioner's claim; the petitioner was permitted to provide a copy of the order along with the orders relied upon before Opposite Party No.3 for compliance.ratio¶6
Opposite Party No.3 was directed to take the fresh decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No. 10250 of 2014, decided 20.06.2025 by Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., High Court of Orissa at Cuttack) disposed of. The petitioner, a Sikshya Sahayak, sought counting of service from 9.6.2007 (the date of engagement of other members of the select list under Annexure-2) with consequential service and financial benefits, and grant of Junior Teacher and Regular Teacher benefits from 9.6.2010 and 9.6.2013 respectively, alleging discrimination vis-a-vis similarly situated persons under the advertisement dated 14.10.2006. Noting that although notice had been issued on 25.06.2014 no counter affidavit had been filed, and that this Court had subsequently taken a different view in a series of similar matters, the Court quashed the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by Opposite Party No.3 (Collector, Mayurbhanj) under Annexure-7 and remitted the matter to that authority for a fresh decision on the petitioner's claim, permitting the petitioner to furnish a copy of the order along with the orders relied upon; the fresh decision was to be taken within three months of receipt of the order. The merits of the service-counting and benefit claims were left for fresh consideration by Opposite Party No.3.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 10250 of 2014

¶3

Miss Kabita Mohapatra

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. S. Das, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

20.06.2025

07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶15

2 . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶16

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶17

“To quash the order of the Collector, Mayurbhanj under Annexure-7 and direct the opp. Parties to count the service of the petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak from 9.6.2007 i.e. the date from which the other members of the select list under annexure-2 got the engagement and to get all the consequential service and financial benefit;

¶18

And further the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the opp. Parties no.3 and 4 to the grant the benefits of Junior Teacher and Regular Teacher to the petitioner from 9.6.2010 and 9.6.2013 respectively without any discrimination, as that has been extended to the other similarly situated persons in pursuance to the advertisement dtd.14.10.2006”.

¶19

4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that subsequent to passing of the

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

impugned order, this Court in a series of the matters has taken a different view with regard to the claim raised by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

¶22

4.1 . It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the order passed by this Court in a number of Writ Petitions.

¶23

5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 25.06.2014, no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that if as contended Petitioner’s claim is covered by some orders passed subsequent to the impugned rejection, this Court can pass appropriate order as deem fit and proper.

¶24

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court placing reliance on the orders so produced in Court is inclined to quash order dtd.23.04.2014 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to the said Opposite Party to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the orders relied on by him to get the benefit before Opposite Party No.3 for compliance. Opposite Party No.3 is directed to take a fresh decision

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶28

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶29

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶30

Subrat