Orissa High Court
Gangadhar Pradhan 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.6287 of 2025
Gangadhar Pradhan ..... 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.
And further be pleased to pass any
order/orders direction/directions as deem fit
and proper and for this act of kindness the
petitioner shall as in duly bound ever pray."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that although the Petitioner has been working
for last twenty years uninterruptedly, however, his service
has not been regularized although there are regular
vacancies in the sanctioned posts. He further contended
that the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties on
several occasions with a prayer for regularization of his
service. The last representation was filed on 25.09.2023
under Annexure-6 to the writ petition before the Opposite
Party No.2, however, no decision has been taken on such
representation as of now. Being aggrieved by such
conduct of the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
In support his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to 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.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted that on perusal of the writ petition, it appears
that the grievance of the Petitioner is still pending for
redressal before the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-
6 to the writ petition. He further contended that in the
event the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-
6 is still pending, he will have no objection in the event
this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the
same in accordance with law within a stipulated period of
time.
6. Considering such submissions, this Court disposes
of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing
the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation
dated 25.09.2023 of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 to
the writ petition by taking into consideration the
judgments referred to hereinabove by passing a speaking
and reasoned order within a period of three months from
the date of communication of a copy of this order. Any
decision taken on such representation be communicated
to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
