The Orissa High Court has set aside an order issued by the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in connection with a remuneration dispute involving a former contractual employee of Sambalpur University Institute of Information Technology (SUIIT), observing that the commission had acted beyond its legal authority.

According to The New Indian Express,  the case arose from a petition filed by the director of SUIIT challenging the OHRC’s order dated October 30, 2025, which had directed the institute to pay enhanced remuneration to former administrative officer Bihari Lal Sahu.

Hearing the matter, the single-judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi ruled that the dispute was related to contractual service conditions and salary fixation, and therefore could not be treated as a human rights issue under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Court records stated that Sahu, a retired Sambalpur University employee, had joined SUIIT on a contractual basis in August 2021 for a one-year term, which was later extended till April 2023. SUIIT, a self-financed institution, had fixed his consolidated monthly remuneration at Rs 20,000 through its governing body. The court noted that Sahu had accepted the terms and continued in service without objection during his tenure.

After completing his assignment at the age of 65, Sahu sought retrospective enhancement of his salary by citing Finance department norms. Following rejection of his representation by university authorities, he moved the OHRC alleging violation of his rights.

The commission subsequently directed SUIIT to pay the differential amount within three months. Challenging the decision before the high court, the institute argued that the OHRC had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a service-related monetary dispute. Advocates Amrit Mishra and Dipanwita Nayak appeared on behalf of SUIIT.

Also Read: Odisha Police SI recruitment scam: Orissa HC rejects bail plea of main accused, 16 others

In its judgment, the high court observed that the Human Rights Commission functions primarily as an investigative and recommendatory body and cannot exercise powers similar to a civil court or service tribunal. Justice Panigrahi held that by examining the validity of remuneration fixed by the governing body and issuing payment directions, the commission had exceeded the scope of its statutory powers.

Calling the OHRC order legally untenable, the court quashed it on grounds of jurisdictional overreach and legal infirmity.