Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity

"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." Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 30, 2026, held that similarly placed government employees are unconditionally entitled to equal treatment and service benefits under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, while dealing with a decades-old plea against arbitrary termination.

A single-judge bench of Justice A.C. Behera observed that state authorities cannot discriminate between identically situated personnel, ruling that "like cases are to be decided alike and similarly placed petitioners are entitled to get equal treatments."

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The original petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Panda, had been serving as a Junior Clerk under the Divisional Forest Officer, Rayagada since October 1983. Upon receiving a direction from the Conservator of Forests for his termination in August 1988, he filed a writ petition seeking regularisation, confirmation of his post, and consequential service benefits under the Odisha Ministerial Service Rules, 1985. The petitioner passed away during the prolonged pendency of the matter, leading to his legal heirs being substituted to prosecute the case and claim his accrued dues.

LEGAL ISSUES

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to regularisation and service benefits on the ground of parity with similarly situated employees who had already been granted relief by the court in connected matters. The court was also called upon to determine whether the denial of such benefits to the deceased petitioner, while granting them to his peers, violated the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

COURT'S OBSERVATIONS

The court perused the previous judgments relied upon by the petitioners and noted that the State did not dispute the factual parity between the present case and an earlier batch of petitions, specifically O.A. No. 595 of 1989, which was decided based on a Division Bench judgment in OJC No. 10517 of 2000. The bench observed that since the deceased petitioner was identically situated with the successful applicants in those disposed of matters, the present writ petition must naturally follow the exact same legal outcome.

"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 1989."

Expanding on the constitutional guarantee of equality, the court invoked Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasising that the law must deal alike with all individuals falling within one class. Relying on the jurisdictional precedent set by the High Court in Ardhendu Sekhar Rath and Another v. State of Odisha and Others, the court reiterated that equality of treatment under equal circumstances is a fundamental constitutional promise. The bench further drew strength from the Supreme Court's judgment in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others v. Bachan Singh, underscoring that equal laws must be applied to all persons in the same situation without any arbitrary administrative distinction.

"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."

The court reinforced this doctrinal position by referring to its own recent pronouncements in Anupama Mallick v. State of Odisha and Manjulata Behera v. State of Odisha, solidifying the principle that identical relief cannot be denied to an identically placed litigant. Applying these principles to the matter at hand, Justice Behera concluded that the legal heirs were absolutely entitled to the service benefits that the deceased clerk would have accrued had his service been protected and regularised at par with his counterparts.

"Equals should not be treated unlike and unlike should not be treated alike, likes should be treated as alike."

Allowing the writ petition on merits, the court directed the State authorities to jointly and severally disburse all entitled service benefits to the substituted legal heirs within a positive timeframe of three months. The court specifically ordered that these financial benefits must be computed as if the deceased employee had not expired, effectively validating his service at par with his identically placed peers.

Date of Decision: 30 March 2026