Orissa High Court
Akrura Sahu vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 29 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2519 of 2025
Akrura Sahu ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Subhadutta Routray
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Cdo Cum Eo, Zilla Parishad, Represented By Adv. -
Bargarh Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
3) Collector Cum Eo, Zilla Parishad,
Baragarh
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 29.01.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to;
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the record.
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other writ/writs, order / orders, direction / directions
directing the opposite parties, particularly opposite
party No. 2 to regularize the service of the petitioner
from the date of his initial appointment against a
vacant sanctioned post by modifying the office order
dated 14.12.2017 under Annexure-3 and further
extend all the service and consequential financial
benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner
within a stipulated time to be fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.
iv) And/or pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper for the ends of justice."
4. The present writ application has been filed by the
petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Party
No.2 to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of
his initial appointment as against a vacant sanctioned post, by
modifying order dated 14.12.2017 under Annexure-3 with a
further prayer to extend all service and all consequential
financial benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner
within a stipulated period of time.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted
that, initially the petitioner was appointed on DLR basis as a
driver. Thereafter, he continued his service and on completion of
ten years, the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing a
writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.3622 of 2014, which was
disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2015 with a direction to the
Opposite Party to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularisation of his service keeping in view the judgment in
State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, (2006)
4 SCC 1 and to grant consequential service benefits as is due and
admissible. He further contended that, vide order dated
14.12.2017 under Annexure-3, service of the petitioner was
regularised with prospective effect. Being aggrieved by such
decision of the opposite parties to regularise his service with
prospective effect the petitioner approached this Court by filing
the present writ application with a prayer as indicated
hereinabove. In course of his argument learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance on the judgment of division bench of
this Court in Principal Secretary to Government and others vs.
Niranjan Das and others reported in 2023 1 ILR Cuttack 635
and batch of a similar others writ appeals bearing W.A. No.936
of 2021 decided on 15.02.2023. By referring to the aforesaid
judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case
of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments.
He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of G.P. Doval and others vs. Chief Secretary,
Government of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1984 SCC
1547.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand contended
that the petitioner has not approached the Opposite parties before
approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. He
further submitted that he would not object, in the event this court
directed the petitioner to submit a representation before the
Opposite Party No.2 with a further direction to the Opposite
Party No.2 to consider the representation in accordance with law
and in light of the aforesaid judgments within a stipulated period
of time.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the submissions
as well as the materials on record, further taking note of the
judgments referred to hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the writ application by granting liberty to the
petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a
detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with
all supporting documents within three weeks from today. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the same in
accordance with law by taking into consideration the judgment
referred to hereinabove and dispose of the representation within
a period of twelve weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned
order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
