Disposed¶30

Surya Kanta Choudhury v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Sept 2025WP(C)/1405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disengagement of a Data Processing Assistant engaged under the discontinued 'Bank on Wheels' scheme of a cooperative bank; held sustainable despite no prior notice/natural justice hearing given temporary nature of engagement; writ disposed with re-engagement observation. Keywords: Bank on Wheels, Data Processing Assistant, disengagement, Annexure-18, natural justice, cooperative bank, W.P.(C) No.1405 of 2022, Orissa High Court, Satapathy J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of with only an observation that the Petitioner may approach the Bank for re-engagement if the 'Bank on Wheels' scheme is revived, to be favourably considered. ¶30

Surya Kanta Choudhury Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, engaged pursuant to the Bank's advertisement (Annexure-2) and engagement order dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure-3), could be disengaged without following the principle of natural justice, i.e., whether the disengagement order dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure-18) is sustainable in law.

¶17

Court's answer

Since the 'Bank on Wheels' scheme under which the Petitioner was engaged has been discontinued by the Bank, and taking into account the nature of the engagement issued under Annexure-3, the Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order of disengagement dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure-18).

¶25

Key takeaways

While not inclined to interfere, the Court observed that as and when the 'Bank on Wheels' scheme is made operative again by the Bank, the Petitioner may approach Opposite Party No.6 for re-engagement, which may be considered favourably.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.1405 of 2022, order dated 01.09.2025 — Surya Kanta Choudhury v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.). Petitioner, engaged as Data Processing Assistant under the 'Bank on Wheels' scheme (advertisement dtd.31.12.2015, Annexure-2; engagement order dtd.06.01.2016, Annexure-3), was disengaged w.e.f. 05.01.2022 by office order dtd.04.01.2022 (Annexure-18) after the Bank discontinued the scheme. Held: given the discontinued scheme and the nature of the engagement under Annexure-3, no illegality or irregularity in the disengagement notwithstanding absence of prior notice/natural justice hearing; writ petition disposed of, with an observation that the Petitioner may approach the Bank for re-engagement if the scheme is revived, to be favourably considered.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1405 of 2022

¶3

Surya Kanta Choudhury …. Petitioner Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr. B. Sahoo, Adv. for O.P.6

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

01.09.2025

¶10

Order No.

¶11

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

¶12

2 . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶13

3 . The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of disengagement passed by the Bank vide office order dtd.04.01.2022 under Annexure-18.

¶14

4 . Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Bank on 31.12.2015 under Annexure-2, Petitioner was engaged as Data Processing Assistant vide order of engagement issued on 06.01.2016 under Annexure-3. However vide the impugned order dtd.04.01.2022, he was

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

disengaged w.e.f. 05.01.2022 without issuing any prior notice to him.

¶17

4 . 1 . It is contended that since basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, Petitioner was engaged vide order dtd.06.01.2016 under Annexure-3, he could not have been disengaged without following the principle of natural justice. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶18

5 . Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.6 on the other hand contended that Petitioner was so appointed in terms of Annexure-2 under a scheme i.e. ‘Bank on Wheels’, as per letter issued on 06.10.2015 under Annexure-1.

¶19

5 . 1 . It is contended that the Scheme under which Petitioner was so engaged i.e. ‘Bank on Wheels’ since was closed by the Opposite Party-Bank, taking into account the nature of engagement issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-3, he was disengaged vide order dtd.04.01.2022 under Annexure-18.

¶20

5 . 2 . It is contended that since the Petitioner was engaged under the scheme ‘Bank on Wheels’ and the said programme was discontinued, Petitioner was disengaged from his work vide the impugned order dtd.04.01.2022.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

5 . 3 . It is also contended that order of engagement so issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-2 clearly indicates that the same is purely temporary and for a period of one year and he can be disengaged at any time without assigning any reason thereof. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

¶24

6 . To the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank, it is contended that the scheme under which Petitioner was engaged is in operation in other ten Cooperative Banks of the State, save and except in the Bank of Opposite Party No.6.

¶25

7 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged by Opposite Party No.6 vide order dtd.06.01.2016 as Data Processing Assistant under a scheme i.e. ‘Bank on Wheels’. Since it is not disputed that the scheme under which Petitioner was engaged has been discontinued by the Opposite PartyBank, taking into account the nature of engagement issued under Annexure-3, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order of disengagement so passed on 04.01.2022 under Annexure-18.

¶26

7 . 1 . While not inclined to interfere with the same, this Court only observe that as and when the scheme will be made operative by the Opposite Party-Bank, Petitioner

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

can make an approach before Opposite Party No.6 for his re-engagement, which may be considered favourably.

¶30

8 . With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶32

Subrat