Orissa High Court
Haryakshya Tripathy vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 29 October, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 30118 of 2025
Haryakshya Tripathy ..... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.10.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that challenge made to impugned order dtd.23.12.2019 be
treated as not pressed for the time being.
3. Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for
the Opp. Parties.
4. It is contended that Petitioner though was engaged as a Driver on
contractual basis vide the order of engagement issued on 15.07.2009
and in terms of the Resolution issued by the G.A. Department on
17.09.2013, he became eligible to get the benefit of regularization on
completion of 6 years of service, which fell due on 04.09.20215, but
vide order dtd.23.12.2019 under Annexure-6 he was regularized
w.e.f.23.12.2019.
4.1. It is contended that claiming his regularization w.e.f.04.09.2015
in place of 23.12.2019 Petitioner made a grievance before Opp. Party
No. 2 on 18.08.2025 under Annexure-7. It is contended that even
though such a grievance was raised under Annexure-7 but vide the
impugned order dtd.18.09.2025 under Annexure-8, such claim of the
Petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason
whatsoever. It is contended that since no reason has been assigned
while rejecting the Petitioner's claim so made under Annexure-7 vide
the impugned order under Annexure-8, the same is not sustainable in
the eye of law. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Das,
learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court
reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and 2012(1) OLR-87.
4.2. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment reported in
2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-
"8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain
any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the
tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must pass
a reasoned order indicating the material on which its
conclusion are based.
xxx xxx xxx
10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes
lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC
510]".
4.3. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported in 2013
(Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:-
"13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter and
keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we
are constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to
exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order of
the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and
conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are the
soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual
infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected
party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper
administration of justice. The orders of the Court must
reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining
the relief claimed by the Petitioner".
5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also fairly
contended that Annexure-8 is a non-speaking order.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering
the submissions made and taking into account the grievance raised by
the Petitioner, it is the view of this Court that while considering
Annexure-7, a reasoned order should have been passed instead of
rejecting the Petitioner's case by holding that it does not bear merit.
6.1. In that view of the matter, this Court while quashing Annexure-
8, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision on the claim made
by the Petitioner in his representation under Annexure-7 in
accordance with law within a period of two (2) months from the date
of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
