Orissa High Court
Suresh Chandra Parida vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 10 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18640 of 2025
Suresh Chandra Parida ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prashanta Kumar Nayak
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
J.K. Bal, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
10.07.2025
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
Additional Govt. Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI in the
nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders
calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to
why:
(i) the Opp. Parties shall not be commanded to
regularise the service of the petitioner as PTS cum- Night
Watchman in terms of the Government resolution and
Rules and the Judgments decided by this Hon'ble Court
as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court within a particular
time;
(ii) all the service and financial benefits shall not be
granted,
(iii) the order dated 2.05.2025 passed by the OP No.1
under annexure-10 shall not be quashed.
And if the opposite parties fail to show cause and/or
show insufficient cause, the Rule be made absolute."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that on 20.11.2002, sanctioned posts were created for Part Time
Sweeper (PTS) for the year 2002-03. Thereafter, on 18.02.2005 an
advertisement was published to fill up such posts. Pursuant to
such advertisement, the Petitioner participated in the selection
process and eventually he got selected on 28.02.2005. On
01.03.2005 pursuant to an appointment letter, the Petitioner joined
in service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that since the date of his initial joining, the Petitioner
has been discharging his duties without any interruption and to the
satisfaction of the authorities. He further contended that despite
working for more than 20 years, the service of the Petitioner has
not been regularized.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that
being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties in not
regularizing the service of the Petitioner, the Petitioner
approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation for
redressal of his grievance. Earlier, the Petitioner approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5790 of 2025. This Court vide order
dated 03.03.2025 under Annexure-7 disposed of the writ
application by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the
case of the Petitioner for regularization in the light of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka -v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in
Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024
SCCOnline SC 3826, in Sripal and Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam,
Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal
No.8158-8179 of 2024 within the stipulated period of time.
6. After disposal of the previous writ application, the
petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a
representation dated 07.03.2025 under Annexure-8. The
representation of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite
Party No.1 vide order dated 03.05.2025 under Annexure-9 to the
writ application. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ application. While
assailing the impugned rejection order dated 03.05.2025, learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties have
not taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as has been mentioned in order dated 03.03.2025 under
Annexure-7 to the writ application. He further submitted that the
prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that
the appointment of the Petitioner has been made subsequent to the
Finance Dept. Resolution dated 12.04.1993.
7. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that after disposal of the previous writ application vide
order dated 03.03.2025, the Opposite Party No.1 has considered
the case of the Petitioner and the representation of the Petitioner
has been disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2025 under
Annexure-9. Further, referring to the impugned order under
Annexure-9, learned Additional Govt. Advocate contended that
the grievance of the petitioner has been considered and the same
has been disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
As directed by this Court. In such view of the matter, learned
Additional Govt. Advocate contended that the Opposite Party
No.1 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the
representation of the Petitioner. He further submitted that since the
petitioner has been appointed after the cut-off date i.e. 12.04.1993,
the prayer of the Petitioner for regularization is not liable to be
considered by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the Opposite Party
No.1 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the
Petitioner for regularization of his service. On such ground,
learned counsel for the State contended that the writ petition being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties,
on a careful analysis of their submission, further on a close
scrutiny of the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 under Annexure-
9, this Court observes that the representation of the Petitioner has
been disposed of pursuant to the order of this Court dated
03.03.2025 under Annexure-7 to the writ application. However,
this Court further observes that the prayer of the Petitioner has
been rejected only on the ground that the appointment of the
Petitioner was made subsequent to the cut-off date i.e. 12.04.1993
pursuant to Finance Dept. Resolution No.17115. The Opposite
Party No.1 has nowhere disputed the fact that the Petitioner was
appointed in the year 2005 and that he has been discharging his
duties continuously. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the
view that the fact that the Petitioner was appointed in the year
2005 and he has been continuing in service is not disputed by
either side. This Court further observes that although this Court
had specifically directed the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the
case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove.
However, the same has not been taken into consideration while
considering and disposing of the representation of the Petitioner.
9. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a
conclusion that the disposal of the representation of the Petitioner
vide order dated 03.05.2025 is not in consonance with order dated
03.03.2025 under Annexure-7. In such view of the matter, the
impugned order dated 03.05.2025 under Annexure-9 is hereby
quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite
Party No.1 to re-consider the prayer of the Petitioner keeping in
view the fact that the Petitioner was appointed on being duly
selected and he has been continuing in service for almost two
decades. It is further directed that while considering the
representation of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 shall take
into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others,
reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826, in Sripal and Anr. vs.
Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025) in Civil
Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024 and the judgment of this Bench in
Sitaram Behera vs. State of Odisha & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.8236
of 2024 dated 16.05.2025 and the representation of the Petitioner
by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two
months from the date of communication of a certified copy of
today's order by the Petitioner. The final decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 14-Jul-2025 15:28:16
