Disposed¶20

Sisir Kumar Satapathy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Jan 2026WP(C)/42745/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily wages engagement claim rejected under Annexure-4 by Opposite Party No.3 on COVID-19 austerity and fund-stoppage ground; ground contended to be no longer in force; State raised no serious objection; Annexure-4 quashed; fresh application permitted within two weeks; lawful decision directed within six weeks of receipt; State of Odisha; W.P.(C) No.42745 of 2023; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-4 order quashed; Petitioner permitted to make a fresh application for re-consideration of his claim, to be filed within two (2) weeks, with Opposite Party No.3 directed to take a lawful decision thereon within six (6) weeks of receipt and communicate it to the Petitioner. ¶20

Sisir Kumar Satapathy Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's claim for re-engagement on daily wages, rejected under Annexure-4 on the ground of COVID-19 austerity measures and stoppage of funds, should be remitted to Opposite Party No.3 for a fresh decision.

¶16

Court's answer

This Court quashed the Annexure-4 order rejecting the Petitioner's claim and permitted the Petitioner to make a fresh application for re-consideration of his claim.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

If the fresh application is filed within a period of two (2) weeks, Opposite Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision on it within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of such application, and the order so passed shall be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.42745 of 2023 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 22.01.2026, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy): The Petitioner, Sisir Kumar Satapathy, challenged the rejection of his claim for engagement on daily wages basis vide order under Annexure-4 issued by Opposite Party No.3, which had rejected re-engagement citing austerity measures adopted by the Government of Orissa due to COVID-19 and stoppage of allotment of funds. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the austerity ground was no longer in force and sought remission of the matter to Opposite Party No.3 for a fresh decision; the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State raised no serious objection to the proposed course. This Court, while quashing the Annexure-4 order, permitted the Petitioner to make a fresh application for re-consideration of his claim and observed that if such application is filed within two (2) weeks, Opposite Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt and communicate the order so passed to the Petitioner. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition was disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.42745 of 2023

¶3

Sisir Kumar Satapathy …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶7

Order No.

¶8

22.01.2026

¶9

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

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶11

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim for his engagement on daily wages basis vide order issued under Annexure-4 by Opposite Party No.3.

¶12

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that such claim of the Petitioner for his reengagement was rejected vide the impugned order on the ground that because of the austerity measure adopted by the Government of Orissa due to COVID-19 and allotment of fund since has been stopped by the Government because of COVID-19, Petitioner cannot be re-engaged.

¶13

4.1 . Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the ground on which claim of the

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

Petitioner was rejected is no more available, as no such austerity measure is in force at present.

¶16

4.2 . It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim.

¶17

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶18

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and taking into account the ground of rejection of the Petitioner’s claim under Annexure-4, this Court while quashing the same, permits the Petitioner to make a fresh application for re-consideration of his claim.

¶19

6.1 . It is observed that if such an application will be filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.3 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶20

7 . With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶22

Subrat Signature Not Verified

¶23

Judge

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 30-Jan-2026 16:10:01

¶25

Page 2 of 2