Orissa High Court
Prakash Reddy vs The Registrar on 24 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23857 of 2023
Prakash Reddy .... Petitioner
Mr.Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
The Registrar, Utkal University & ... Opposite Parties
Others
Mr.Amit Kumar Nath, Advocate for O.Ps.1 & 2.
Mr.Satya Brata Mohanty, AGA for O.Ps.3 & 4
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
24.09.2025
Order No. This case is delinked from the batch of cases and
taken up as under:-
The Petitioner has aired his grievance, as is
emerging from the text of prayer column of the petition,
which reads as under:-
"Therefore, it is prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to admit this case and issue notice to
the Opp. Parties to file their show cause as to why the
case of the Petitioner shall not be allowed and after
hearing the parties, the case of the petitioner be allowed
and pass necessary order to set aside Annexure-8 dated
22.06.2023 and necessary direction be given to the opp.
Parties No.1, 2 & 3 to take steps to regularize the
services of the petitioner from the date of his initial
appointment, i.e., 27.02.1988 as has been done in case
of the similarly placed employee namely Parikhita
Mallick and Gadadhar Sethy and financial and
consequential benefit to that effect be sanctioned and
disbursed within a stipulated period"
2. The short and sweet of the petition is that the date
of regularization of petitioner should to be with effect
from 27.02.1988 when he gained entry in service, may be
on daily wage basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner
argues that several persons were engaged on daily wage
basis, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-1 wherein the
name of his client figures at Sl. No.104; all others barring
a few came to be regularized in service with effect from
the date of their entry into service whereas his client has
been meted out a step-motherly treatment, inasmuch as
he has been given 18.03.2011 as the date of
regularization when it ought to have been 27.02.1988.
Counsel draws attention of the Court to petitioner-s
earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No.36240 of 2022
disposed off on 09.01.2023.
3. Learned panel counsel for the University, in his
usual style, opposes the petition contending that his
client being a State-University, it depends upon the
funds to be given by the State Government; any
appointments would require funds since an appointee
has to be given salary/emoluments; same is the case
when a daily wager is regularized in service since he
attains the status of regular employee and eventually,
there shall be amelioration of drawals. He tells the Court
that though the petitioner was given order of
regularization on 06.02.2014, he first approached this
Court in W.P.(C) No.36240 of 2022, which was disposed
of on 09.01.2023 and therefore, even if regularization is
to be effective from the date of entry into service, it has
to be only on notional basis is broadly acceptable to this
Court. Therefore, he contends the interference of this
Court is not called for especially when petitioner has
already been given regularization vide order dated
06.02.2014 with effect from 18.03.2011.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused petition papers, this Court is inclined to
grant indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the
petitioner was appointed on 27.02.1988 along with
several others and those several others have already
been regularized in service with effect from the
respective dates of their entry. That being the position,
what applies to goose, shall apply to gander and therefore,
the services of the petitioner ought to have been
regularized with retrospective effect from 27.02.1988 on
the principle of parity and equality, which Articles 14 &
16 of the Constitution of India enshrine.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in
drawing the attention of Court to the order dated
09.01.2023 passed in his earlier W.P.(C) No.36240 of 2022
wherein he was permitted to give a representation
coupled with a direction to University to cause its
consideration. The University is an instrumentality of the
State under Article 12 of the Constitution, vide decision
of Apex Court in Ujam Bai v. State of UP, AIR 1962 SC
1621 and therefore all its action are subject to discipline of
Part-III of the Constitution and they are liable to
examination in writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is
apparent discrimination of petitioner at the hands of
University Authorities and therefore, the same cannot be
sustained.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a
Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order
dated 06.02.2014 to the extent it fixes petitioner's effective
date of regularization as 18.03.2011 coupled with a
direction to fix "27.02.1988" as the date of his
regularization. Further, the petitioner shall be given
notional benefit of retrospective regularization till
20.12.2022 and the monetary benefits only with effect
from 21.12.2022. So far as the financial aspects are
concerned, it hardly needs to be stated that the opposite
party no.4 has to make appropriate budgetary allocation
in this regard. Compliance within three (3) months, to be
reckoned from this day.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all
concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Basu
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 25-Sep-2025 18:39:13
