Orissa High Court
Painu Bhoi vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 24 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19962 of 2025
Painu Bhoi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Shashibhusan Biswal
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.07.2025
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 counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the
Petitioner with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule
NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show
cause as to why the case of the petitioner shall
not be considered for regularization of his
service in the post of Attendant laying vacant
in the Office of the Blood centre, VSS Institute
of Medical Sciences and Research, Burla,
Sambalpur-768017, under Health and FW
Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and as to
why the petitioner shall not be paid all the
consequential service benefits.
AND if the Opp. Parties fail to show
cause or show insufficient causes then this
Hon'ble Court may make the said Rule
absolute by giving directions to the Opp.
Parties to regularize the service of the
petitioner against the vacant post of Attendant
laying vacant in the Office of the Blood centre,
VSS Institute of Medical Sciences and
Research, Burla, Sambalpur-768017, under
Health and FW Department, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar with all service benefits."
AND necessary direction be issued to the
Opp. Parties more particularly to the Opp.
Party No.1-the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary
Health and FW Department Govt. of Odisha,
Bhubaneswar to take a final decision on the
pending representation under Annexure-7
within a time as stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court.
AND further be pleased to issue any
other appropriate writ/writs, Rule/Rules or
order/orders, direction/directions as may be
deemed fit and proper in the interest of
Justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed on
20.11.2012 pursuant to letter under Annexure-2 series to the
writ petition. He further submitted that since the date of
initial appointment, the Petitioner has been continuing in
service on contractual basis without any intervention in
service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture,
contended that the nature of service that is being rendered
by the Petitioner is perennial in nature. He further
contended that the Government of Odisha in Health &
Welfare Department formulated a policy decision which
was communicated vide letter dated 30.09.2024 under
Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In view of the
recommendation made by the High Power Committee, a
decision was taken, which is indicated in paragraph-30 of
the recommendation under Annexure-4, to the effect that
the Health Department should take necessary steps to
regularize the contractual employees of Odisha State AIDS
Control Society (OSACS), Bhubaneswar who have
completed more than six years of service with much
dedication and commitment for the greater interest of the
OSACS, Odisha. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
referring to the aforesaid recommendation of the High
Power Committee, contended that the Petitioner has
completed more than 6 years of service. He further
submitted that service career of the Petitioner so far remain
unblemished. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to
regularize in service in terms of the recommendation
contained under Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Shripal and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam,
Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025 in Civil Appeal
Nos.8158-8179 of 2024); and in Jaggo v. Union of India &
others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 as well as the
judgment of this Court in Sitaram Behera v. State of
Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.8236 of 2024 decided vide
judgment dated 16.05.2025), submitted that since the
Petitioner has been working for almost a decade
uninterruptedly, his service should have regularized in terms
of the aforesaid judgments. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that ventilating his grievance,
the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.1 by
filing a detailed representation on 18.11.2023. He further
contended that although such representation has been
received by the Opposite Party No.1, however no final
decision has been taken on such representation. Being
aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.1 in
regularizing the service of the Petitioner and in disposing of
the representation of the Petitioner under Anexure-7 to the
writ petition, the Petitioner has approached this Court by
filing this writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that although he has no instruction in the matter,
however, it appears that the Petitioner has approached the
Opposite Party No.1 by filing representation under
Annexure-7 to the writ petition. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the State contended that in the event any
such representation is pending before the Opposite Party
No.1 and no final decision has been taken thereof, he will
have no objection in the event this Court directs the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law and
within a stipulated period of time.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the
background facts of the present case, further taking into
consideration the submission made by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been working for
almost a decade continuously without any break and he has
a unblemished career and also taking into consideration the
recommendation under Annexue-4, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the grievance of the
Petitioner as involved in his representation under
Annexure-7 strictly in terms of the judgments referred to
hereinabove as well as the recommendation under
Annexure-4 within a period of three months from the date
of communication of a certified copy of this order by
passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision
so taken on such representation be communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such
decision.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ
petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
