Principal Secy, Social Security and Empowerment of Persons With Disabilities Deptt Vs Sitaram Dakua

State and its officials are preferring this intra Court appeal calling in question the order dated 24.03.2021 whereby Respondents, in W.P.(C) No.13882 of 2015, having been favoured, the relief has been accorded in the following terms:-

¶16

“In such view of the matter, the opposite parties are directed to extend the benefit to the petitioner as due and admissible in the light of the judgment of this Court in Prabira Kumar Biswal (supra) by extending the revised scale of pay as applicable as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.”

¶17

Appeal is filed after brooking a long delay of 1379 days. An application in I.A. No.873 of 2025 supported by an affidavit

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

is moved seeking condonation thereof. Learned AGA, Mr. Panda draws attention of this Court as to the checkered history of the litigation, inasmuch as review petition was filed and thereafter appeal was filed and ultimately, the matter went to the Apex Court where a suggestion was given to press the review petition.

¶20

The review petition having been rejected, the original order is put in intra Court appeal at our hands. Though, apparently delay appears to be too long, a plausible explanation has been filed in brooking the same. That apart, it is an appeal by the State and therefore, some laxity is available in matters like this. No objections are filed to the said application, rightly. No prejudice would be caused to the other side, if delay is condoned. Enormous injustice may be caused, if the same is not condoned. In view of that we allow this application and thereby condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶21

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶22

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶23

02.

¶24

W.A. No. 339 of 2025

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, inasmuch the contention of Mr. Panda that there is no vinculum juris of employer and employee between the Appellants herein and the Respondent is bit difficult to countenance. This, we say

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

because of other cases, namely, W.P.(C) No.12600 of 2020 and OJC No.10096 of 2001 etc. wherein the vinculum juris of the kind has been established and that the said judgments rendered in those cases have been duly implemented by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government vide order No.747/SSPED dated 29.01.2021, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of the Respondents. Therefore, the State cannot be selective in launching the legal battle against tiny persons like the Respondents herein, State being constitutionally ordained model employer vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika vs. State of Assam. , AIR 2013 SC 234.

¶28

For the ease of reference, the order of the Commissionercom-Secretary to Government dated 29.01.2021 has been reproduced in its entirety.

¶29

“Whereas in W.P(C) No-12600/2020 filed by Sri Nilamadha Dakua & Others - Vis-State of Odisha & Others, the Hon'ble High court vide Order No.03 dated 28-05-2020 have directed Opposite Parties to extend the benefit to the petitioner as due as admissible in the light of the Judgment of this Court in case of Prabir Kumar Birwal (Supra) by extending the revised scale of Pay as applicable to The State Government Employees as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

2. Whereas, the petitioners namely Sri Nilamadhaba Dakua, Attendant, Hellen Keller Red Cross School for the Deaf, Berhampur, Ganjam, Smt. Gitanjali Panda, Attendant, Hellen Keller Red Crazy School for the Deaf, Berhampur, Ganjam, and Smt. Sabitri Biswal, Cook, Hellen Keller Red

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

Cross School for the Deaf, Berhampur, Ganjam represented along with the copy of the Judgment paused by the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 12600/2020 to implement the same.

¶33

3. Whereas, the representation of the petitioners along with the copy of the Judgment passed the Han'ble High Court was received in this Department on dated 05.08.2020 The Case was examined in detail to extend benefit of revised scale of pay as per ORSP Rule-1998 to the petitioner we 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005 like Sri Prabir Biswal & others in QJC No. 10096/2001. The views of Law Department and Finance Department were taken. The matter was father examined and it was decided to comply the orders of the Hon'ble Court.

¶34

4. In view of the above, DSSO, Ganjam is directed to make pay fixation and calculate the urvear dues as per ORSP Rule, 1998 in respect of three petitioners in the present case. This exercise be completed by 5th February 2021 without fail for release of funds by this Department before the dateline.

¶35

The orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P(C) No. 12600/2020 is complied accordingly.”

¶36

In the above circumstances, this appeal being unworthy of merits, is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, cost having been made easy.

¶37

(Dixit Krishna Shripad)

¶38

Judge

¶39

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶40

Judge

¶41

AKPradhan

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:27:21

¶44

Page 4 of 4

Principal Secy, Social Security and Empowerment of Persons With Disabilities Deptt v. Sitaram Dakua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Secy, Social Security and Empowerment of Persons With Disabilities Deptt v. Sitaram Dakua

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

Union of India Vs Kalpana Nayak

Commissioner,Cuttack Municipal Corporation,Cuttack Vs Radha Krisna Dash

Principal Secy. to Govt. Vs Ashok Kumar Pattanayak

Kishori Mohanty Vs Executive Engineer (Electrical) Bcdd Ii, Tpcodl, Bbsr

Union of India Vs Sidda Gopaludu

M/S Ss Poultry Farm Vs Zonal Manager Cum Authorized Officer, Indian Bank