[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Minu Jena vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 7 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10218 of 2026
Minu Jena ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Manas Pati
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
D.K. Sahoo, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.04.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"The petitioner therefore prays that your lordships
may graciously be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to
regularize the service of the petitioners against the post of
Cook-cum-Attendant in terms of the Judgment passed by
this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 20401 & 20426 of
2017 disposed of on 29.09.2022, so also taking the various
decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned supra within a
reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and
to extend all service and financial benefits to the
petitioners as has been extended to teaching and non-
teaching staffs working in other states.
And pass such order/ directions as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that being
aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties in regularising the
service of the present Petitioner, who has been working for more
than a decade, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ application. In course of hearing, learned counsel for
the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others in SLP
(Civil) No.22241-42 of 2016 as well as the judgment in Dharam
Singh & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. decided on
19.08.2025, submitted before this Court that where the employee is
working continuously without any break to the satisfaction of the
authorities, non-regularization of such service would amount to
exploitation. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite
Parties in regularizing the service of the Petitioner, the Petitioner
has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however,
it appears that the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party
No.3 with a prayer for regularization of her service by filing a
detailed representation dated 16.10.2025 at Annexure-6 to the writ
application. He further contended that if such representation is still
pending and no final decision has been taken thereon, he will have
no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to take a
final decision on the representation of the Petitioner within a
stipulated period of time and in accordance with law and in terms
of the judgment of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties,
on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking
note of the limited nature of the grievance involved in the present
writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite
Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the
Petitioner dated 16.10.2025 at Annexure-6 within a period of eight
weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this
order by the Petitioner. The representation of the Petitioner shall be
disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is further
directed that while considering the representation of the Petitioner
the Opposite Party No.3 shall take into consideration the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo's case (supra) and Dharam
Singh's case (supra) and the judgment in Bhola Nath V. The State
of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 99 as well as the
judgment in Pawan Kumar & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.
reported in 2026 INSC 156 along with the order at Annexure-5
passed in favour of similarly situated persons. The final decision so
taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be also communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such a decision.
7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Page 3 of 3.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 09-Apr-2026 14:52:15
