Manoj Kumar Moharana v. State Of Odisha,Rural Development Dept.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9682 of 2019 Sri Manoj Kumar Moharana .........
Petitioner Mr. B. Panda, Senior Advocate Mr. B.B. Das, Advocate -VersusState of Odisha & others ..........
Opp. Parties Mr. D. Nayak, Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
16.12.2022 Order No.
03.
1.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2.
Heard Mr. B. Panda, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. B.B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3.
The petitioner is a Special Class Contractor, engaged by the opposite party No.3 for execution of the work in terms of the agreement. It may be noted that the agreement was signed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Jajpur.
4.
The petitioner has, by means of this writ petition, urged this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party No.3 to reimburse the differential amount for enhancement of minimum wages in terms of the Notification No.1942 dated 09.10.2012 or any other notifications, which were in force in the relevant time.
5.
Mr. B. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a reference to the decision of this Court in Mahesh Prasad Mishra vs. State of Orissa & others, reported in 2012 (Supp.-I) OLR-1035. It has been observed in Mahesh Prasad Mishra (supra) thus:
"8.
In view of the aforesaid statement of law which has been declared by the Supreme Court and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Suryamani Nayak and another Division Bench in Surendranath Kanungo v. State of Orissa and M/s. Niligiri Corporation Society Ltd. (supra), the claim of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Division Bench. Therefore, the same shall be applied to the fact situation and relief be granted. In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court which has been followed by this Court in the aforesaid cases, the stand taken by the State justifying the impugned order cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's prayer for payment of
price escalation/enhancement of rate of wages of labour and materials vide Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Direction is given to the opposite parties to pay the enhanced rate of wages of labour component under the agreement as per Govt. Notification dated 13.7.2009 under Annexure-2."
6.
Mr. B. Panda, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the similar direction may be passed by this Court. 7.
Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate referring to the representations filed by the petitioner on 19.09.2018, Annexure2 series to the writ petition, has contended that those representations will be taken care of, but it will be expedient, if the petitioner files a fresh representation cataloguing the wages on different points of time and accounting the differential amount that will accrue in terms of the Notification dated 09.10.2012 or any other notification on enhancement of the minimum wages.
8.
Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: We direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation laying down the details of the claim within a period of seven days from today. At the same time, we direct the opposite parties No.2 & 3 in
particular to consider the representations, as filed by the petitioner including the fresh one and reimburse the differential wages in terms of the Notification No.1942 dated 09.10.2012, Annexure-2 to the writ petition or any other notification enhancing the minimum wages for the period as relevant.
9.
The entire exercise shall be completed by the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the representation from the petitioner.
10.
There shall be no order as to cost.
(S. Talapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhasis