[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Nalinikanta Das vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 13416 of 2024
Nalinikanta Das ..... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy (1), Sr. Advocate
along with
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
04.12.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner along with Mr. A. Sahoo, learned counsel and Mr. A.
Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp.
Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging
order dtd.03.05.2024 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under
Annexure-12. As per the said order Petitioner's claim to get the
benefit of antedated regularization was rejected.
4. In course of hearing learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner contended that Petitioner is no more interested to get the
benefit of antedated regularization as was his case in W.P.(C)(OAC)
No. 1917 of 2015 and Petitioner confines his prayer to get the
benefit of seniority for the period he worked as a contractual
employee on notional basis.
4.1. In support of his submission Mr. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel
relies on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.D.
Jayaprakash & Ors. etc. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. (SLP(C)
Nos. 19539-19540 of 2021 and another decision in the case of State
of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi (SLP(C) No. 10399
of 2020).
4.2. It is accordingly contended that appropriate order be passed to
extend the benefit of seniority for the period Petitioner continued as
a contractual employee instead of antedating the date of
regularization with all consequential service and financial benefits.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that
since in the earlier writ petition it was the claim of the Petitioner to
get the benefit of antedated regularization and pursuant to the earlier
order passed by this Court, his claim has been rejected, the prayer
made by the learned Sr. Counsel to extend the benefit of seniority
only since was not the issue in the earlier writ petition, such a prayer
cannot be allowed.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties,
considering the submission made and the fact that Petitioner now
confines his prayer only to get the benefit of seniority for the period
he discharged his duty as contractual period and the same was not an
issue in W.P.(C)(OAC) No. 1917 of 2015, this Court finds no
illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.03.05.2024 so
issued under Annexure-12 in rejecting such claim of the Petitioner.
6.1. However, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to make a
fresh application before Opp. Party No. 1 to get the benefit of
seniority from the date he was so appointed on contractual basis on
notional basis.
6.2. It is observed that, if any such application is moved within a
period of three (3) weeks hence before Opp. Party No. 1, the said
Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within
a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such
application. While taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of
the judgment so cited (supra) be taken into consideration, if it is
applicable. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order
along with the judgments in the above noted two cases with his
representation for compliance.
6.3. Opp. Party No. 1 is directed to take an independent decision
with regard to the claim now being raised by the Petitioner in the
present writ petition and that too without being influenced by the
earlier rejection.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
