Nagendra Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7236 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No. 11104 of 2023

            Nagendra Pradhan                           ....                   Petitioner
                                                                Mr. R.N. Prusty, Advocate

                                            -versus-
            State of Odisha and others                 ....           Opposite Parties
                                                                  Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.
                                                            Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate
                                                                       (For O.P. No.5)

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

04.07.2023

I.A. No.9333 of 2023 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. This interlocutory application has been filed at the instance of the private Opposite Party No.5 to recall the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5.

4. A copy of the interlocutory application has already been served on the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

5. It is stated by Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5 that the order dated 18.04.2023 has been passed without issuing notice to the private

Opposite Party No.5 whom she is representing. It is further submitted that so far Opposite Party No.5 is concerned, he had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.24473 of 2012 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.01.2019 and the same has been confirmed vide order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.261 of 2021. In view of the decision in the above noted writ petition, the Opposite Party No.5 was regularized in service pursuant to the direction given by the coordinate Bench of this Court. She further contended that the Petitioner taking undue advantage of order dated 18.04.2023 is trying to displace the Opposite Party No.5 from his service.

6. This Court, on perusal of record, is of the view that the order dated 18.04.2023 has been passed at the stage of admission without issuing notice to the Opposite Parties. Although the direction was to consider the representations of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 & 6 in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. Such order would otherwise not cause any injustice to the Opposite Party No.5. However, considering the allegation that the order dated 18.04.2023 is being misused by the Petitioner to displace/unsettle the Opposite Party No.5, who has already been regularized by virtue of a judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court which has been confirmed in writ appeal, this Court clarifies that the Opposite Party No.5, who has been regularized in service pursuant to the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court, shall remain out of the purview of the consideration as directed by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2023. Further, it is clarified that while passing the order dated 18.04.2023, the only intention of this Court was to give a

direction to Opposite Parties to consider the grievance of the Petitioner as stated by him under Annexure-3 & 6, the representations, which were filed before the Opposite Party No.1 by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had approached this Court by challenging the inaction of the Opposite Parties in taking a decision on his representation. Moreover, this Court had not passed any affirmative direction leaving it to the authorities to take a decision in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame.

7. Considering the above facts and that the decision of the authorities would no way affect the service of the Opposite Party No.5, who has been lawfully regularized pursuant to the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the writ appeal, the State-Opposite Parties shall do well not to touch the private Opposite Party No.5 while considering the representations of the Petitioner as has been directed by this Court. It is further made clear that the consideration of the representations of the Petitioner shall be strictly in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid clarification, this I.A. is disposed of.

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

Debasis

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: PA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2023 19:19:31