Orissa High Court
Satyajit Parhi vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6281 of 2025
Satyajit Parhi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Dilip Kumar Sahu
-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
06.03.2025
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 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, prays that this Hon'ble Court
would be graciously pleased to admit this writ
application, issue rule NISI calling upon the
Opposite Parties to file show cause as to why the
Opposite Parties shall not be directed to consider
the case of petitioners for regularization of Service
along with grant all consequential service and
financial benefits to the Petitioner as admissible to
the posts held by them with effect from date of
approval as per Judgement Bijay Kumar Behera and
others -Versus- state of Odisha and others in
W.P.(C) No.38547 of 2020, within a stipulated time.
In the event of the Opposite Parties fail to file
show cause or show insufficient cause, then the said
rule may be made absolute and issues a Writ in the
nature of mandamus /certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ or Writs directing the opposite
parties for regularization of the petitioners along
with grant all consequential service and financial
benefits to them as admissible to the posts with effect
from date of approval as per Judgement Bijay
Kumar Behera and others -Versus- State of Odisha
and others in W.P.(C) No.38547 of 2020 within a
stipulated time."
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that
although the Petitioner has filed representation under Annexure-5
before the Opposite Party No.2, but the same is still pending before
the said Opposite Party and the said Opposite Party has not taken any
decision as of now.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection,
if a direction is given to the authority concerned to consider the
representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a
stipulated period of time.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ
petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite
Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under
Annexure-5 by taking into consideration the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1; State of Karnataka and others v.
M.L.Keshari and others, 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982; 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, within a
period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy
of this order. It is needless to mention here that the representation of
the Petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by passing a
speaking and reasoned order. Any decision so taken on the said
representation shall be communicated to the Petitioner within ten
days thereafter.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
