Hemanta Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

writ petition at the behest of the similarly circumstanced employees was considered by the learned single Judge and disposed of the same on 12^th August, 2025 upon recording the findings on merit. The impugned order is the resultant effect of the judgment/order dated 12^th August, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.21472 of 2025 ( Ajaya Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha & others ), which can be reasonably gathered from the tenet of the impugned judgment/order, which runs thus:

¶21

Page 1 of 7

¶22

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

¶23

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

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

¶25

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice to the Opposite Parties and after hearing to the parties may set aside the order under Annexure-1, 2 & 18 holding that such orders are completely illegal, arbitrary & unlawful on the ground that such orders are violating to the Govt. resolution dtd.31.01.2018 which is notified under Odisha Gazette at Annexure-8, Guideline dtd.01.02.2018 under Annexure-9, X-Cadre posts created vide dtd.28.08.2018 under Annexure-12, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack order under vide file No. 4336, dtd.14.11.2018 under Annexure-13 and violate to the Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 16, and 21 of the constitution of India, 1950.

¶26

Further this Hon'ble Court may direct to the opp. Parties to allow the petitioner in the post of RI in x-cadre in view of the Govt. Resolution

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

dtd.31.08.2018 with all other financial & service benefits applicable to him.

¶29

And or may pass any such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court would be deem fit and proper.

¶30

And for which kind act the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶31

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is covered by the order of this Court so passed on 12.08.2025 in W.P.(C) No.21472 of 2025.

¶32

5. In view of such submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in the light of the order so passed in W.P.(C) No.21472 of 2025.”

¶33

2. We are given to understand that another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.22007 of 2025 ( Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra v. State of

¶34

Odisha & others ) was disposed of on 12^th August, 2025 in the similar fashion and the same was carried in an intra-Court appeal, being W.A. No.1469 of 2025. The judgment and order of the learned single Judge disposing of the aforementioned writ petition is also handed over to this Court in order to ascertain the parity of the facts and the issue of law involved therein.

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

3. After perusal of the impugned judgment/order rendered in

¶37

the aforementioned writ petition, we find that there is parity on facts as well as the law, as the similarly circumstanced employees were treated uniformly and, therefore, there is no impediment on the part of this Bench to take into account the aforesaid aspects while disposing of the instant appeal.

¶38

4. The coordinate Bench, who was in seisin of W.A. No.1469 of 2025, disposed of the said appeal upon returning its findings and ultimately set aside the judgment/order dated 12^th August, 2025 passed by the learned single Judge with the following directions:

¶39

“ 5.4. Very importantly, paragraph.6 of the subject Resolution/ Government Policy provides that, pension of deployed employees after retirement on superannuation, death in harness or removal from service shall be determined basing on the last presumptive pay to be arrived in the post which he continued under the original cadre. Only for the limited purpose of terminal benefits, i.e., pension, the presumptive pay drawn in the department from which the employee has been deployed to another is kept intact in all other aspects. The umbilical cord of the employee with the parent department or unit is

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

disrupted and is pested to the deployed department or unit.

¶42

In the above circumstances, this Appeal succeeds; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set at naught. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. As a consequence, the Employee shall be continued in the deployed department forthwith. The Employee shall be handed 50% of the differential of the salary within a period of eight weeks, immediately. We make it clear that this order will not dilute the power of State Government to depute any of its employees from the deployed department to other departments, if it so desires.”

¶43

5. The judgment passed by the co-equal strength Bench is binding on another co-equal strength Bench and it is trite law that in the event, the subsequent coordinate Bench does not agree with the findings returned in the order passed in another proceedings having the similar facts and the involvement of law, it can refer the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of a large Bench.

¶44

6. The comity of judicial discipline ordains adherence of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench and in the event, the Bench does not find any material to take a dissenting view, it should

¶45

Page 5 of 7

¶46

follow the said judicial pronouncement extending the similar reliefs

¶47

which had been extended to a similarly circumstanced employee. Even apart, in the event the coordinate Bench declines to interfere with the order which is founded upon the legal principles enunciated

¶48

in the previous judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench, it would invite an anomalous situation, as the conflicting judgment shall operate simultaneously in the legal field. To avoid conflicting decisions to occupy the space in the legal parlance shall have a larger cascading effect and, therefore, the judicial discipline demands the adherence and acceptance of the legal principles so decided by the earlier coordinate Bench.

¶49

7. We do not find any disparity either on fact or the law involved in the instant case with the case decided by the coordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ appeal and, therefore, in order to bring uniformity and certainty in law, we accept the proposition of law laid down by the earlier coordinate Bench and the appellant herein should be extended the same benefit which has been granted by the earlier coordinate Bench.

¶50

Page 6 of 7

¶51

th

¶52

8. Since the judgment/order dated 12^th August, 2025 has been interfered with and quashed and set aside by the earlier coordinate Bench, we also set aside the impugned order dated 8^th December, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.30719 of 2025 in the light of the observations made in the judgment/order dated 20^th April, 2026 rendered in W.A. No.1469 of 2025.

¶53

9. In the light of the observations made hereinabove, the instant writ appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances with no order

¶54

as to costs.

¶55

(Harish Tandon)

¶56

Chief Justice

¶57

(M.S. Raman)

¶58

S. Behera