Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.15990 of 2025
Prafulla Kumar Dash ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. Sushree Lopita Padhi
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
17.06.2025
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 Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the
writ petition as well as 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 be
kind enough to
(i) Admit this Writ Petition;
(ii) Issue appropriate Writ(s), direction(s), order(s)
directing the Opp. Parties, the State Authorities to
regularize the service of the Petitioner from the
date of his initial appointment with all
consequential benefits.
(iii) And/or pass any such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deem
just and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.29699 of 2020. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
12.11.2020 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the
Opposite Parties to consider the grievance of the Petitioner in the light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L.
Kesari & others bearing SLP(C) No.15774 of 2026. She further
submitted that despite order dated 12.11.2020 passed in W.P.(C)
No.29699 of 2020, the Opposite Parties did not consider the grievance of
the Petitioner for regularization of service of the Petitioner. As a result of
which, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing
CONTC No.1833 of 2021. This Court disposed of the contempt
application vide order dated 24.03.2021 by granting further one month's
time to the Opposite Parties to comply with the order. At this juncture,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the original order dated
12.11.2020 has not been complied with as of now. However, since the
limitation for filing another contempt application has expired, the
Petitioner again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that
although he has no instruction in the matter, however it appears that the
Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition and
the same has been disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2020. In such view
of the matter, learned counsel for the State states that in the event the
order dated 12.11.2020 has not been complied with, the Opposite Parties
be given some more time to ensure that the order is complied with in its
letter and spirit.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, further keeping in view the
fact that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing the
previous writ petition, which has been disposed of vide order dated
12.11.2020 and the same is yet to be complied with, this Court, while
disposing of the present writ petition, directs the Opposite Party No.1 to
consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the order dated 12.11.2020
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29699 of 2020 within a period of six
weeks from today by passing a speaking and reasoned order by taking into
consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgments referred to hereinabove. The final decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
