Orissa High Court
Padmanava Parhi vs The Registrar on 24 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.32263 of 2023
Padmanava Parhi .... Petitioner
Mr.A.M. Das, Advocate
-versus-
The Registrar, Utkal University & ... Opposite Parties
Others
Mr.Satya Brata Mohanty, AGA for O.P.1
Mr.Tarananda Pattanayak, Advocate for O.Ps.2 & 3
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
24.09.2025
Order No.
03 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:-
"In this circumstances, it is humbly prayed before
this Hon'ble Court may kindly he. pleased to issue
Notice to the Op. Parties as to why this ease shall not
be allowed and Op.No-3 shall not be directed for
regularization service of the petitioner in the post of
"Jr. Assistant" From the date of initial Appointment
i.e. 1.5.1989 before the Op. Parties by quashing
Annexure-17 and to consider the representation of
the petitioner vied Annexure-13 before O.P. No-3 in
view of Annexure-20; and the petitioner further
prayed before this Hon'ble Court to directed the O.P.
No.l & 2 pass an appropriate order vide annexure 20
and 21 within a stipulated period of time."
2. The short and sweet of the petition is that the date of
regularization of petitioner should be with effect from
01.05.1989 when he gained entry in service, may be on daily
wage basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that
several persons were engaged vide order dated 01.05.1989,
as would be evident from Annexure-1 wherein, the name of
his client figures at Sl. No.94; 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
26.07.2013 as the date of regularization when it ought to have
been 01.05.1989. Counsel draws attention of the Court to
petitioner-s earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No.1055 of
2023 disposed off on 18.01.2023.
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 01.07.2010, he first approached this Court
in W.P.(C) No.1670 of 2002, which was disposed of on
01.07.2010 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 26.07.2013 with effect from
16.08.2013.
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 01.05.1989 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 01.05.1989 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 18.01.2023 passed in
his earlier W.P.(C) No.1055 of 2023 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
22.06.2023 & 11.07.2023 to the extent it fixes petitioner's
effective date of regularization as 26.07.2023 coupled with a
direction to fix "01.05.1989" as the date of his regularization.
Further, the petitioner shall be given notional benefit of
retrospective regularization till 21.05.2021 and the monetary
benefits only with effect from 01.05.1989. 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.
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Judge
Reason: Authentication
Basu
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 25-Sep-2025 18:39:13
