Orissa High Court
WA/1847/2025 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs RANJAN KUMAR SWAIN on 23 June 2026
of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1847 of 2025 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA -Versus- Ranjan Kumar Swain …. Respondent Mr. Sadasiva Patra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 01. ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1847 of 2025
State of Odisha and others
….
Appellants
Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA
-Versus-
Ranjan Kumar Swain
….
Respondent
Mr. Sadasiva Patra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
01.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
23.06.2026 W.A. No.1847 of 2025 and I.A. No.4332 of 2025 This Intra-Court appeal by the State and its Functionaries seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.02.2025, whereby Respondent-Employee’s W.P.(C) No.21705 of 2019 having been favoured, the relief has been accorded to him as under: “10.In the wake of above, the Letter No.10640/P, Bhubaneswar, dated 20.09.2019 issued by the Deputy Director to Government in Planning and Convergence Department, Odisha-Opposite Party No.2 (Annexure-8) cannot be held to be sustained. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside and this Court does so.
10.1. As a consequence thereof, the order of disengagement of the petitioner treating his appointment as irregular and illegal vide Letter No.1416, dated 27.09.2019 under Annexure-9 issued by the Deputy Director (P&S), DPMU, Ganjam, Chhatrapur- Opposite Party No.4 is hereby set aside.
11. Needless to say that the Opposite Parties shall grant all consequential service and financial benefits available to the petitioner.
12. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above terms, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.”
2. Learned AGA-Mr. Behura appearing for the Appellants vehemently urges that the orders of the authorities could not have been voided by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as what they had focused was the provisions of The Odisha Subordinate Statistical Surveyors (Methods Of Recruitment And Conditions Of Service) Rules, 2015 and therefore, action was perfectly in accordance with the legal regime.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- employee draws our attention to the selection of his client by the Selection Committee constituted under The Orissa Subordinate Statistical Surveyors (Method Of Recruitment And Conditions Of Service) Rules, 1994 and that the Respondent was appointed on 14.12.2016, i.e., a little after the 2015 Rules came into force on 08.09.2015. Therefore, he says that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal of State.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the Selection Committee that recommended case of Respondent was constituted under the erstwhile 1994 Rules and accordingly the recommendation was made on 06.07.2015 followed by regular appointment dated 14.12.2016. Of course by that time the new 2015 Rules were promulgated and that is where a gross error was committed by the authority, who focused on these new Rules forgetting erstwhile 1994 Rules. Had he adverted to Section 6 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937, that error could have been avoided.
4.1. Learned Single Judge having considered all aspects of the matter has rightly arrived at a conclusion favourable to the Respondent-Employee and adverse to that of Appellants herein. Despite vociferous submission no error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out nor any ground for not sustaining the impugned order is demonstrated. We do not agree with Mr. Behura that the financial & service benefits could not have been accorded to the employee, inasmuch as there is a gross error on the part of Appellant-authorities. An argument to the contrary would tantamount to permitting the authorities to take the benefit of their own wrong, there being no culpability whatsoever attributable to the Respondent-employee.
4.2. The above apart, this appeal has been preferred by the State after brooking a long delay of 230 days. An application in I.A. No.4332 of 2025 supported by affidavit is also moved seeking its condonation. A bare perusal of the application and the affidavit does not demonstrate a plausible explanation for the long delay brooked.
In the above circumstances, this appeal fails both on merits and on delay. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall be given effect to within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks. Now, no costs. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge
Anisha
Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:26:49 Signature Not Verified