Orissa High Court
Suraj Kumar Behera vs ) State Of Odisha on 9 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.24443 of 2024
Suraj Kumar Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Rakesh Behera
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha, represented ..... Opposite Parties
though Addl. Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Government
of Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
2) The Commandant, Home Represented By Adv. -
Guards, Puri-cum- Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
Superintendent of Police, Puri
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.04.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard the 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 a
prayer for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider his
representation under Annexure-5 series to writ petition and to
re-appoint him as a Home Guard.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
while the Petitioner was serving as a Home Guard, he was entangled in
a criminal case. Thereafter he was disengaged from service. In the
meantime, the Petitioner has faced trial in S.T. Case No.115/37 of
2022 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant
Sessions Judge, Puri. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 14.10.2022,
the Petitioner has been acquitted of all charges of the criminal case.
He further contended that although the Petitioner has approached the
Opposite Parties to be reinstated in service, however, no steps have
been taken in the meantime. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
contended that on 10.10.2023 and 17.09.2024 the Petitioner
approached the Opposite Parties by filing the representations under
Annexures-5 Series to the writ petition. However, no decision has
been taken on such representations. He further contended that the case
of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175, as well as by this Court in Smt.
Nirmala Sahoo vs., State of Odisha & others (W.P.(C) No.25947 of
2022 disposed of on 24.03.2023).
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that
it appears that the issue that has been raised in the present writ petition
is subjudice before the Opposite Party No.2 in the shape of the
representations under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He further
contended that since no decision has been taken by the authorities, the
present writ petition is pre-mature. He further contended that he will
have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party
No.2 to take a lawful decision on the representations of the Petitioner
within a stipulated period of time.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful analysis of the submissions made, further
keeping in view the factual background of the present case, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the
Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representations of the Petitioner
under Annexure-5 Series keeping in view the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the judgments
referred to hereinabove and dispose of the representations by passing a
speaking and reasoned order within two months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so
taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
