W.P.(C) No.22809 of 2026 Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.22809 of 2026

CNR No.ODHC010540422026

An application under Article 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India.

---------------

M/s. Bijay Kumar Jena … … Petitioner

-Versus-

Deputy Director (Revenue) ESIC,

Bhubaneswar and others … … Opp. Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. Somanath Mishra,

Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Amarendra Prasad Ray,

Standing Counsel

------------------

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and Judgment : 24.09.2026

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The matter is listed for hearing under the heading for

admission.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties ESI

Corporation. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern

engaged in horticultural activity and it is stated that it

W.P.(C) No.22809 of 2026 Page 2 of 4

worked as a sub-contractor for Horticulture work under

Jindal Steel, Angul.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the Annexure-5 is the order passed under

Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act,1948, order number 7235

dated 29.10.2024. Learned Counsel refers to paragraph-4

of the said order:

“… … …Shri Bijay Kumar, Proprietor attended the

personal hearing on 27.08.2024 and again requested

3 weeks time to produce records. His request was

accepted and next date of personal hearing was

fixed on 13.09.2024. But, none attended the personal

hearing on 13.09.2024…. … …”

Learned counsel also refers to the date of order in the

signature put by the authority the Deputy Director

(Revenue-II) on 21.11.2024.

4. Learned counsel then refers to Annexure-4 to the writ

application, i.e., letter dated 12.11.2024 which was filed

before the Regional Director, Revenue Branch-II, ESIC

Regional Office, Unit-9, Bhubaneswar seeking re-fixation of

the date of personal hearing in respect of the petitioner.

Learned counsel submits that the letter dated

12.11.2024 was received in the office of the Regional

Director as the signature and stamp of the receiving officer

would indicate in copy of the letter.

5. It is submitted that if the facts are taken in to

consideration in their entirety and the dates are marked, it

would be apparent that there is no effective hearing

W.P.(C) No.22809 of 2026 Page 3 of 4

granted to the petitioner before the impugned order under

Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act (Annexure-5) was passed.

The learned counsel draws attention of the Court to

the fact that the petitioner sought for time on 12.11.2024

on which date no hearing was made, the authority has

signed the order on 21.11.2024.

6. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposes the

prayer made in the writ application and supports the

impugned order passed by the authority under Section 45-

A of the Act. It is submitted that no interference be made

by this Court.

7. In considered view of this Court no purpose would be

served in keeping the matter pending inasmuch as the

petitioner seeks for getting an effective opportunity of

hearing before the ESI authority.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party-ESI,

considering the materials on record, particularly the order

dated 29.10.2024 signed on 21.11.2024 and the letter

dated 12.11.2024 seeking refixation of date of hearing

(Annexure-4), it is directed that the petitioner shall

approach the authority with all supporting documents and

materials to be produced for effective adjudication of the

matter.

The petitioner shall appear before the authority on

05.10.2026. On the said date, the authority shall fix a date

of hearing granting opportunity to the petitioner to adduce

W.P.(C) No.22809 of 2026 Page 4 of 4

evidence and produce all records to support his

contentions before the authority.

9. The orders dated 29.10.2024 and 21.11.2024 are set

aside and quashed for the purpose of re-adjudication by

the authority.

This Court has not expressed any opinion regarding

the merits of the claim of the petitioner that would be made

before the authority.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner does not have much balance

of money in its account at State Bank of India, Nalco

Branch, Nalco Nagar, Angul which was issued the

Garnishee order as per Annexure-6 by the ESI Authority.

11. It is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to

operate the Bank account at State Bank of India by

maintaining balance of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh)

which would be subject to the adjudication by the authority

under the ESI Act. The Garnishee order dated 20.11.2025

is also modified accordingly to such extent.

12. The writ petition is disposed of with the above

observations.

Urgent certified copy of this Judgement and order be

granted as per Rules.

…..………………………………..

Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

The 24

th September,2026/Gs