Ramesh Chandra Panda(Dead) And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others

A.C. Behera, J

Originally, this writ petition was filed by Ramesh Chandra Panda, but, when during the pendency of this writ petition, original petitioner(Ramesh Chandra Panda) expired, then, his legal heirs were substituted in his place to prosecute this writ petition.

The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the Opposite Parties not to terminate him(petitioner) from his service in the light of the O.M.S. Rules, 1985, to direct the Respondent No.3(Divisional Forest Officer, Rayagada Division) to regularize his service, to confirm his post with consequential service benefits and to pass order for any other benefits in his favour available under law, to which, he(petitioner) is entitled for stating in his petition that, he(petitioner-Ramesh Chandra Pranda) has been serving as a Junior Clerk under the Divisional Forest Officer, Rayagada(Opposite Party No.3) since 10.10.1983.

When, as per the letter/clarification dated 06.08.1988, the Conservator of Forests, Koraput Circle(Opposite Party No.2) directed Divisional Forest Officer, Rayagada(Opposite Party No.3) to terminate his service, then, he filed WPC(OA) No.955 of 1988 against the Respondents/Opposite Parties praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State/Respondents/Opposite Parties.

At the time of hearing of this WPC(OA) No.955 of 1988 on dated 19.02.2026, when the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the judgment in this WPC(OA) No.955 of 1988 is required to be passed similar to the judgment dated 10.01.2019(Annexure-8) passed by this Court in WPC(OA) No.515 of 1989 and the judgment of the said WPC(OA) No.515 of 1989 was passed as per the directions made by the Division Bench judgment dated 10.01.2019 of this Court in OJC No.10517 of 2000, for which, direction was given to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for filing of the certified copy of the said judgment dated 10.01.2019 passed in OJC No.10517 of 2000.

Therefore, at the time of last hearing of this WPC(OA) No.955 of 1988, learned senior counsel for the petitioners filed the copy of the judgment dated 10.01.2019 passed in OJC No.10517 of 2000 by the Division Bench after serving copy thereof on the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

After going through over the judgment dated 10.01.2019 passed in

O.A. No.595 of 1989 and batch of OAs, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that, the matters in this writ petition are fully similar with the matters in disposed of O.A. No.595 of 1989 vide Annexure-8 and the judgment of the said O.A. No.595 of 1989 was passed on the basis of the directions made by this Court in the judgment dated 10.01.2019 in OJC No.10517 of 2019.

When the petitioner in this writ petition, i.e., Ramesh Chandra Panda was similarly placed with the petitioners in the disposed of OA No.585 of 1989 and batch of OAs, then as per law, judgment in this WPC(OA) No.955 of 1988 is required to be passed alike to the judgment passed in O.A. No.595 of 1989and batch of OAs vide Annexure-8.

It is the settled propositions of law that, like cases are to be decided alike and similarly placed petitioners are entitled to get equal treatments from the Court without any discrimination.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Ardhendu Sekhar Rath and another vrs. State of Odisha and others : reported in 2019(II) OJR-491 that,

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 prescribes equality before law, law should be deal alike with all in one class that, there shall be equity of treatment under equal circumstances, which means “that equals should not be treated unlike and unlike should not be treated alike, likes should be treated as alike.”

(ii) In a case between Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others vrs. Bachan Singh : reported in 2009(SC)-2745 that,

As per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is that, all persons similarly placed shall be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation without any discrimination.

(iii) In a case between Anupama Mallick vrs. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.5813 of 2026 at Para No.6 that, like the cases are to be decided alike and similarly placed applicants/petitioners are entitled to get equal treatments from the Court without any discrimination.

(iv) In a case between Manjulata Behera vrs. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.37539 of 2025 dated 20.03.2026.

So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, when the original petitioner in this WPC(OA), i.e., Ramesh Chanda Panda was similarly placed with the petitioners in disposed of O.A. No.595 of 1989 and batch of OAs, then at this juncture, the judgment in this writ petition is to be passed similarly in the line of judgment passed in O.A. No.595 of 1989 and batch of OAs vide Annexure-8.

Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on merit.

The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to provide all the entitled service benefits of the deceased petitioner(Ramesh Chandra Panda) to his substituted legal heirs, i.e., present petitioners treating and accepting the service of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Panda at par with the petitioners/applicants in O.A. No.595 of 1989 and batch of OAs computing/calculating the service benefits of the deceased petitioner(Ramesh Chandra Panda), to which, he would have been entitled, if, he would not have been expired and to disburse the amounts to the petitioners within a period of three months positively.

Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment along with the copy of Annexure-8 passed in O.A. No.595 of 1989 immediately to the Opposite Parties.

As such, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier in this writ petition stands vacated.