WA/844/2026 of HAREKRUSHNA DHAL Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 20 July 2026

ORDER

20.07.2026

01.

1. The order dated 21st January, 2026 passed by the Engineer-in- Chief, Water Resources Department was assailed by the appellant when the Engineer-in-Chief cancelled the office order dated 13th January, 2026 with the rider that the Officers transferred are instructed to continue in their present place of posting until further orders. The said order was issued by a competent authority on the basis of the office order No.205 dated 13th January, 2026 issued by the Chief Engineer & Basin Manager, S & B Basin, Laxmiposi.

2. The writ petition though was restricted to the said order dated 21st January, 2026, but cannot be perceived to be an independent order as the foundation is laid on the earlier office order dated 13th January, 2026, which would be evident from the tenet of the said office order. The single Bench while considering the writ petition found that the orders passed by the other competent authority which were annexed as Annexure 3 and 4 to the writ petition are not sustainable in the eye of law as the said authority is not vested with the power to pass such office orders. Even the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3 therein conceded to such legal proposition and on the basis thereof, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the specific direction upon the appellant to join his previous posting under opposite party No.4 therein, who was consequently directed to allow the appellant to continue in his establishment on submission of his joining report.

3. Mr. Rajjeet Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vociferously submits that when the subject matter of challenge is restricted to a letter dated 21st January, 2026, there is no occasion on the part of the single Bench to quash the other office orders, which do not constitute an integral part of the cause of action.

4. We are unable to countenance such proposition sought to be canvassed in the instant writ petition. There is a gulf of difference between an independent order and a dependent order. Once the order which perceived the character of an independent order is founded upon an earlier order, it may be termed as a dependent order or a consequential order. There is no fetter on the part of the Court in pursuit of adjudicating the dispute raised before it to go into the intricacies of the earlier orders, which form part of the record and in the event, it is found that the said order is patently illegal and not permissible, we do not find any fetter on the part of the Court to do a complete and effective justice. The single Bench found that the order, which is impugned in the writ petition has a reference of an earlier order dated 13th January, 2026 and there is no illegality and/or infirmity committed by the single Bench in quashing and setting aside the said order, not only on the ground of a lack of competence of the issuing authority, but also on a fair submission made by the party to the said proceeding. The portion of the impugned order, which raises a concern to the appellant is merely a consequential one and, therefore, we do not think that it is a fit case where any interference is warranted in the instant appeal.

5. The writ appeal sans merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

S.K. Guin/PA Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jul-2026 19:09:29 Signature Not Verified