Orissa High Court
Halu Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 22 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19826 of 2025
Halu Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Khuntia
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA
Mr. L.K. Moharana,
Advocate for the
TPCODL.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
22.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for
the State and learned counsel for the TPCODL. Perused the writ
application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayers:-
"Under the above circumstances, it is humbly
prayed that the writ petition may be allowed;
And
(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate
writ may be issued commanding the opposite
parties more particularly to opposite party
Nos.1 and 2 to regularize the services of the
petitioner against the post of Non-ITI
Unskilled Helper (Maintenance Work and
Revenue Collection) by taking into account
his long and continuous service both under
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha
(CESU) and Tata Power Central Odisha
Distribution Ltd. and keeping in view the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of
India and others (S.L.P. (C) No.5580 of
2024 disposed of on 20.12.2024) reported in
AIR 2025 SCC 296 and the subsequent
judgment in the case of Shripal and another
Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal
No.8157 of 2024 disposed of on 31.01.2025)
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and to
grant all consequential service and financial
benefits of the petitioner within a stipulated
period as deemed fit and proper by this
Hon'ble Court;
(B) And any other order /orders or
direction/directions may be issued so as to
give complete relief to the petitioner;"
4. In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for
the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has
submitted representation before the Chief Executive Officer,
TPCODL, Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-13. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said
representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the
Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner
under Annexure-13 within a stipulated period of time.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 submits that
he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is
considered by the Opposite Party No.2, which is stated to be pending,
in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time.
6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner,
the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a
direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of
the Petitioner under Annexure-13 keeping in view the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others,
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, in Sripal and Anr. vs. Nagar
Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025 in Civil Appeal
No.8158-8179 of 2024) within a period of three months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2
shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under
Annexure-13 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision
so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be also communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ application
stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
