M/S Kab Tak Rokoge Security and Manpower Services Pvt. Limited, Cuttack v. M/S Employees State Insurance Corporation, Govt. of India, New Delhi

Orissa HC21 Apr 2026WP(C)/5002/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P(C) No.5002 of 2025; Kab Tak Rokoge Security and Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ESIC; Amnesty Scheme 2025 (01.10.2025–30.09.2026); disposal/withdrawal of writ petition to avail amnesty benefits; amicable settlement of coverage, contribution and damages disputes; interim orders merged; Vakalatnama not tagged to record; Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo; order dated 21.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of, enabling the petitioner to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme 2025 and pursue amicable settlement with the opposite parties; interim orders, if any, merged with the present order. ¶¶31

M/S Kab Tak Rokoge Security and Manpower Services Pvt. Limited, Cuttack Vs M/S Employees State Insurance Corporation, Govt. of India, New Delhi — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn/disposed of so that the petitioner can avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme 2025 promulgated by the opposite parties (ESIC).

¶¶18

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with the observations made in the order.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

In view of the developments (memo and Amnesty Scheme 2025), the parties are expected to work out an amicable settlement as per the 'Amnesty Scheme' acceptable to both parties, and the Court encourages such settlement.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

Contentions raised in the writ application shall not act as a bar, in any manner whatsoever, to the parties working out an amicable settlement in terms of the 'Amnesty Scheme'.ratio¶¶29
Any interim order, if passed earlier by the Court, merges with the order passed on 21.04.2026 and shall not come in the way of the parties arriving at a settlement.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (C) No.5002 of 2025 — M/s. Kab Tak Rokoge Security and manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and others — disposed of by order dated 21.04.2026 (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, J., Hybrid Mode). On mention by the petitioner's counsel, the Court took on record a memo enclosing the Regional Director, ESIC's letter dated 18.02.2026, recording that during pendency the opposite parties issued the 'Amnesty Scheme 2025' (valid 01.10.2025 to 30.09.2026) covering disputes regarding coverage, contribution and disputed damages. The petitioner sought leave to avail the Scheme's benefits, which the Standing Counsel endorsed. The Court expected the parties to work out an amicable settlement under the Scheme, clarified that contentions raised in the writ application would not bar such settlement, directed that any earlier interim orders merge with the instant order, and disposed of the writ petition. Separately, the Registry was asked to locate the Standing Counsel's Vakalatnama, found untagged, with liberty to file it afresh.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P(C) No.5002 of 2025

¶2

M/s. Kab Tak Rokoge Security and manpower Services Pvt. Ltd.

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. G. P. Jena, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

M/s. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Govt. of India, New Delhi and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. A.P. Ray, Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

21.04.2026

(Hybrid Mode)

Order No.

02. 1 . The matter being in the list is mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the memo of date which is filed in Court enclosing the letter dated 18.02.2026 issued by the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, opposite party in the petitioner. The memo states thus:

¶16

“1. That during pendency of the Writ petition, the opp. parties have issued circular known as Amnesty Scheme 2025 which is valid from 01.10.2025 to 30.09.2026 and the Amnesty Scheme covers the disputes regarding coverage and contribution and disputed damages and also relates to pending Criminal cases.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

2. That since petitioner was to avail the benefits under the scheme, the writ petition No.5002/2025 filed by the petitioner may kindly be permitted to be withdrawn permitting the petitioner to avail the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme 2025.”

¶19

Memo is taken on record. Scanned copy be updated. Copy of the memo along with annexure has been served on the learned Standing Counsel Mr. A.P. Ray, who usually appears for the opposite party-ESI Corporation.

¶20

2 . Mr. Ray, learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties being present in the Court shall appear for them. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that he has filed his Vakalatnama but his name is not reflected in the cause list.

¶21

3. On verification of the case records available, it is found that the Vakalatnama has not been tagged to the record.

¶22

Registry shall do well to locate the Vakalatnama and scanned copy be updated.

¶23

4. Mr. Ray, learned Standing Counsel for the ESI Corporation has the liberty to file duly executed Vakalatnama again as it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that he had filed Vakalatnama in April, 2025 and there is possibility of the said Vakalatnama having been misplaced.

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that leave may be granted to avail the benefit of the

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

‘Amnesty Scheme 2025’ promulgated by the opposite parties – ESIC. Office letter dated 18.02.2026 issued to the petitioner by the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Regional Office, Odisha, Bhubaneswar is scanned and reproduced herein:

¶27

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties endorses the statements made in the memo and submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

7. In view of the above developments, it is expected that the parties shall work out amicable settlement as per the ‘Amnesty Scheme’ acceptable to both the parties and this Court in no uncertain terms encourages such settlement.

¶29

8. It is further clarified that contentions raised in the writ application shall not be bar in any manner whatsoever for the parties to work out amicable settlement in terms of the ‘Amnesty Scheme’.

¶30

Interim order, if any, passed earlier by this Court shall merge with the order passed today. Any order passed earlier shall not in any manner come in the way of the parties to arrive at a settlement.

¶31

9. The writ petition is disposed of with the observations made above.

¶32

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶33

Judge

¶34

Radha

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Apr-2026 12:33:42