Orissa High Court
Amulya Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 5 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3579 of 2025
Amulya Kumar Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Dilip Kumar Sahu
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
M.R. Mohanty, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
05.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the
writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the following prayers:-
"It is therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court
would be graciously pleased to admit this writ
application, issue rule NISI calling upon the
Opposite Parties to file show cause as to why the
they shall not be directed to consider the cases of
petitioner for regularization along with grant all
consequential service and financial benefits to the
Petitioner as admissible to the posts held by
petitioner as per Judgement dated 27/02/2023 in
the matter of Bijay Kumar Behera and others -
Versus-state of Odisha and others in W.P.(C)
No.38547 of 2020 within a stipulated time.
In the event of the Opposite Parties fail to
file show-cause or show insufficient cause then the
said rule may be made absolute and issues a Writ
in the nature of mandamus /certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ or Writs directing the opposite
parties for regularization of the petitioner along
with grant all consequential service and financial
benefits as per Judgement dated 27/02/2023 in the
matter of Bijay Kumar Behera and others -Versus-
state of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.38547 of
2020 within a stipulated time.
And further be pleased to pass any
order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and
proper."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that although the Petitioner has been working for last thirty-
five years uninterruptedly, however, his service has not been
regularized although there are regular vacancies in the
sanctioned posts. He further contended that the Petitioner
approached the Opposite Parties on several occasions with a
prayer for regularization of his service. The last representation
was filed on 25.09.2024 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition
before the Opposite Party No.1, however, no decision has
been taken on such representation as of now. Being aggrieved
by such conduct of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In
support his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1;
State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Keshari and others,
2010(II) OLR (SC) 982; Shripal and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam,
Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025 in Civil Appeal
Nos.8158-8179 of 2024); and in Jaggo v. Union of India &
others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted that on perusal of the writ petition, it appears that
the grievance of the Petitioner is still pending for redressal
before the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-5 to the writ
petition. He further contended that in the event the
representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-5 is still
pending, he will have no objection in the event this Court
directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the same in
accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.
6. Considering such submissions, this Court disposes of
the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation dated
25.09.2024 of the Petitioner under Annexure-5 to the writ
petition by taking into consideration the judgments referred to
hereinabove by passing a speaking and reasoned order within
a period of three months from the date of communication of a
copy of this order. Any decision taken on such representation
be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Apr-2025 16:03:49
