Askara Gochhaayat Vs Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

This is an application by the widow and son of one Narasingh Gochhayat, who was working as a sweeper under the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB), presently known as Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL).

¶18

It is not in dispute that unfortunately the said Narasingh Gochhayat died in harness on 11.09.1995

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

and on such sad demise, the widow and his son made an application for appointment through rehabilitation assistance scheme, which was prevailing then.

¶21

Assailing the inaction of the erstwhile OSEB (Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited) in the matter of consideration of the prayer for appointment of Petitioner No.2 under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, the Petitioners approached this Court by filing O.J.C. No.4846 of 1996. The same was disposed of by order dated 24.07.2009 giving liberty to the Petitioner No.2 herein, who was also the Petitioner No.2 in the said OJC to file a fresh application in the prescribed form.

¶22

During pendency of consideration of such application, a new regulation Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited Rehabilitation Assistance Regulations, 1997 came into force. The said regulation is on record at Annexure-B/1.

¶23

It was stipulated in such regulation that in lieu of employment a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/shall be paid. For convenience of reference the relevant Rule No.5.6 is culled out hereunder;

¶24

“5.6 The amount of rehabilitation assistance which may be made available to any Beneficiary under these Regulations shall be Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

only) which shall be paid in accordance with Regulation 13.”

¶27

It is submitted that the Petitioner No.1 has been paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only on 06.01.2021 in terms of the regulation, as such the first limb of the prayer has become infructuous and it is apt to note that the amount of entitlement is Rs.1,00,000/which is wrongly stated as Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶28

So the only question that remains to be answered is as to whether the Petitioners are entitled to any interest on the amount, which has been paid in the year 2021.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Rath submits that the entitlement was in the year 1996 in terms of the regulations referred to herein above and because of the inordinate delay in payment, the Petitioners are entitled to interest and this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 can direct for payment of such interest.

¶30

In this context he relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sovakar Guru vs. State of Odisha and others, 2022 SCC Online Ori 1478. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Dash, appearing for the Opposite Parties-OPTCL, submits that the delay had occasioned since the matter was pending in this Court and attained finality only in the year 2009, when the writ petition was disposed of by order dated

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

24.07.2009 as noted above. And, it is further submitted referring to the recitals in the counter affidavit, that granting of interest in the factual matrix of the case at hand would amount to a bonanza, and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.

¶33

On considering the rival submission in the light of the judgment of this Court referred to hereinabove wherein the entitlement of interest has been dealt with relying on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ltd. and Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 894 the claim for entitlement of interest is to be considered.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have moved the authority for getting their legitimate grievance addressed by employment under the Rehabilitation scheme in the year 1996 and the matter was disposed of by order dated 24.07.2009. There is no plausible explanation as to why no step was taken by the authorities to make the payment, on account of the death of the sole bread earner, who was working as a sweeper in terms of Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited Rehabilitation Assistance Regulations, 1997 which admittedly came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1996.

¶35

In the factual matrix of the case at hand, this Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

would be sub served if the Opposite Parties-OPTCL are directed to pay interest @ 8% per annum from 01.04.1996 to 06.01.2021, the date on which the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the Petitioner No.1 (widow), within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38

In the event the amount is not paid within the period of 90 days as directed, the same will entail penal interest @ 9% from the date of entitlement as noted above till it is paid and such penal interest shall be recovered from the errant official.

¶39

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 15. U.C.C. as per rules.

¶40

(V. Narasingh) Judge

¶41

Santoshi

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-Oct-2025 19:34:17

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Askara Gochhaayat v. Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Askara Gochhaayat v. Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandana Kumuda @ Gandana Vs State of Odisha

Krishnarao Pratang @ Kisanarao Patarang Vs State of Odisha

Ashis Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Rasmi Ranjan Ray Vs State of Odisha

Niranjan Marthi Vs State of Odisha

Tapan Kr.Majhi Vs Debal Ku.Mishra