Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has set aside an order of the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC) ordering payment of higher remuneration to a former contractual employee of Sambalpur University Institute of Information Technology (SUIIT).
The High Court held that the rights panel lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a contractual service dispute. The verdict came in a writ petition filed by the director of SUIIT challenging the OHRC’s order of October 30, 2025 in favour of former administrative officer Bihari Lal Sahu.
The High Court observed that the dispute related purely to fixation of remuneration and did not fall within the definition of human rights under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Sahu, a retired employee of Sambalpur University, had been appointed on a contractual basis at SUIIT in August 2021 for one year. His tenure was later extended till April 2023. According to the institute, which functions as a self-financing bo
dy, the governing body had fixed his consolidated remuneration at Rs 20,000 per month, a condition accepted by him throughout his service tenure without protest.
After he attained the age of 65 and retired from the assignment, Sahu sought retrospective hike in remuneration citing Finance department guidelines. When his representations were rejected by the university authorities, he approached the OHRC alleging violation of human rights.
The OHRC subsequently directed SUIIT to pay the differential remuneration within three months. Challenging the order, the institute contended that the Commission had exceeded its statutory powers by venturing into a service-related financial dispute. Advocates Amrit Mishra and Dipanwita Nayak argued on behalf of SUIIT.
Considering the petition, the single judge bench of Justice S K Panigrahi held that the Human Rights Commission is essentially recommendatory and investigative in nature and does not possess adjudicatory powers akin to a civil court or service tribunal. The court noted that by examining the correctness of remuneration fixed by the governing body and issuing directions for payment, the Commission had assumed the role of a service adjudicatory forum beyond its statutory mandate.
The HC declared the Commission’s order legally unsustainable and quashed it on grounds of jurisdictional error and legal infirmity.