Orissa High Court
Sarada Prasad Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.656 of 2025
Sarada Prasad Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
18.11.2025
W.P.(C) No.656 of 2025
&
I.A. No.19748 of 2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with
the following prayer:-
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records
and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs;
i) To direct the opposite parties to antedate the appointment of
the petitioner with effect from 1.07.2014 in terms of Judgment
dtd7.9.2022 passed in WPC(OAC) no.2373 (C) of 2014 & batch
of cases under Annexure-2 with all consequential benefits.
ii) To direct the opposite parties to fix seniority of the petitioner
in terms of Judgment dtd7.9.2022 under Annexure-2 and
judgment dtd.29.9.2023 passed in W.A. No.1257 of 2022 and
batch of cases.
// 2 //
iii) To direct the opposite parties to promote the petitioner to the
post of Senior clerk with effect from03.01.2019 and Head clerk
with effect from07.12.2022 with all financial and
consequential benefits.
And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and
proper for the interest of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound
shall ever pray."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that Petitioner in terms of the earlier order
passed by this Court in WPC(OAC) No.2373 of 2014 &
batch, has not been provided with appointment from the
date of his eligibility. It is also contended that similar
benefit of appointment as claimed, has been extended in
favour of similarly situated employees.
5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on
the other hand contended that if in terms of the earlier
judgment passed by this Court, Petitioner has not got the
benefit, let Petitioner move the concerned authority for re-
consideration of his claim as made in the Writ Petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the dispute involved and the
submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ
Petition permits Petitioner to make a comprehensive
representation before Opposite Party No.1 for consideration
of his grievance as made in the Writ Petition.
6.1. It is observed that if any such application will be filed
within a period of one (1) week hence, Opp. Party No.1 shall
// 3 //
do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such
application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.1 be
communicated to the Petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ
Petition along with I.A stand disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
