Orissa High Court
Purna Chandra Sethi vs State Of Odisha & Others on 4 August, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.4454 of 2023
Purna Chandra Sethi .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mahapatra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ....
Opposite Party
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 04.08.2025
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dt.23.09.2022. Vide the said order,
claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of
regularization was rejected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that Petitioner was appointed on daily wage
basis along with others vide order of appointment
issued on 16.05.1996 under Annexure-2. However,
after long continuance, when persons appointed vide
order under Annexure-2 approached the Tribunal by
filing OA No.3092 & 3091 of 2015 and batch, the said
Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal
// 2 //
vide order dt.01.05.2018 under Annexure-7 inter alia
directing the State-Opp. parties to regularize the
services of the Petitioners therein. Pursuant to the
said order and after confirmation of the same by the
Apex Court in the appeal filed by the State, the order
passed by the Tribunal was complied, vide order
dt.28.09.2021 under Annexure-11.
4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner is similarly
situated as like the persons who were regularized in
terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under
Annexure-7, Petitioner claiming similar benefit though
moved the authorities, but when the same was not
considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C)No.33573 of 2021. This Court vide order
dt.01.11.2021 when directed for consideration of the
Petitioner's claim, taking into account the benefits
extended in favour of the similar situated employees in
terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under
Annexure-7 so implemented vide order under
Annexure-11, without proper appreciation of the same,
Petitioner's claim for regularization was rejected vide
the impugned order under Annexure-13.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that since similar benefit in favour of the
similar appointees have been extended vide order
under Annexure-11, Pursuant to the order passed by
// 3 //
the Tribunal under Annexure-7, Petitioner being
similarly situated cannot be discriminated.
4.3. In support of the same, reliance was placed to a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind
Kumar Srivastav and Ors. (2015) 1 SCC 347),
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that when a
particular set of employees is given relief by the Court,
all other identical situated persons need to be treated
alike by extending that benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court in
Para 22 and 23 of the decision has held as follows:-
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the
reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by
the appellants as well as the respondents, can be
summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular
set of employees is given relief by the court, all
other identically situated persons need to be
treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing
so would amount to discrimination and would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
This principle needs to be applied in service
matters more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all similarly situated persons
should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal
rule would be that merely because other similarly
situated persons did not approach the Court
earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-
recognised exceptions in the form of laches and
// 4 //
delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons
who did not challenge the wrongful action in their
cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that
their counterparts who had approached the court
earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then
such employees cannot claim that the benefit of
the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They
would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and
delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a
valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in
those cases where the judgment pronounced by
the court was judgment in rem with intention to
give benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they approached the court or not. With
such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon
the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof
to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation
can occur when the subject-matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C.
Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of
India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ).
On the other hand, if the judgment of the court
was in personam holding that benefit of the said
judgment shall accrue to the parties before the
court and such an intention is stated expressly in
the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from
the tenor and language of the judgment, those
who want to get the benefit of the said judgment
extended to them shall have to satisfy that their
petition does not suffer from either laches and
delays or acquiescence.
// 5 //
23. Viewed from this angle, in the present case,
we find that the selection process took place in the
year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the
year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders
dated 22-6-1987. The respondents before us did
not challenge these cancellation orders till the
year 1996 i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means
that they had accepted the cancellation of their
appointments. They woke up in the year 1996
only after finding that some other persons whose
appointment orders were also cancelled got the
relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The
earlier judgment had granted the relief to the
parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent
to highlight that these respondents have not
joined service nor working like the employees who
succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As
of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance
of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only was
there unexplained delay and laches in filing the
claim petition after a period of 9 years, it would be
totally unjust to direct the appellants to give them
appointment as of today i.e. after a period of 27
years when most of these respondents would be
almost 50 years of age or above."
4.4. It is accordingly contended that the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires
interference of this Court.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that since Petitioner is a fence sitter and he
only prayed for regularization of his service after
extension of the benefit vide order under Annexurre-11,
// 6 //
pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal under
Annexure-7, no illegality or irregularity can be found
with the impugned order.
5.1. It is also contended that since the Petitioner made
the claim only by filing W.P.(C ) No.33573 of 2021, after
extension of the benefit vide order under Annexure-11,
Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get similar
benefit and no illegality or irregularity can be found
with the impugned order.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties sand
considering the submission made, this Court finds that
Petitioner was appointed along with others on daily
wage basis vide order dt.16.05.1996 under Annexure-2.
As found from the records, persons appointed along
with the Petitioner moved the Tribunal by filing OA
No.3090 of 2015 and batch. The Tribunal while
disposing all those applications vide order
dt.01.05.2018 under Annexure-7 directed the said
authorities to regularize the services of the applicants
therein. The said order as found has been implemented
by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 vide
communication dt.28.09.2021 under Annexure-11.
6.1. Since Petitioner is similarly situated and was
appointed along with the beneficiary of order under
Annexure-11, placing reliance on the decision rendered
// 7 //
in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastav as cited supra,
it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is also
entitled to get similar benefit.
6.2. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to
quash the impugned order dt.23.09.2022 so issued by
Government-Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-13.
While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp.
party No.2 to extend similar benefit as has been
extended in favour of employees vide order under
Annexure-11. This Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to
pass a fresh order by extending the benefit of
regularization in favour of the Petitioner within a period
of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
6.3. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sangita
Reason: authenticaiton of order
Date: 06-Aug-2025 17:55:29
