[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jamuna Digal vs State Of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6996 of 2025
Jamuna Digal ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Kishore Chandra
Pradhan
-versus-
State of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.04.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"It is therefore, prayed that your Lordships be
graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue Rule
NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or in any other
appropriate nature of writ (s) as deem fit and proper
calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why
the prayer made hereunder shall not be allowed, and if
no/insufficient cause is shown, the said rule be made
absolute by issuing writ(s) in the nature of The Opp.
Parties be directed to regularize the services of the
present petitioner against the post of Peon presently
held by him on completion 06 years of contractual
service in the said post with all other consequential
service and financial benefits since the similarly
situated persons have availed the same benefits at
Annexure-4 within a stipulated period in the interest of
justice.
Further be pleased to pass such other writ
(s)/order (s) as may deem just and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.09.2009, the
Petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment
to the post of Peon. On being selected, the Petitioner was issued
with the engagement order dated 31.08.2010 at Annexure-2.
Pursuant to such engagement, the Petitioner joined in service by
submitting a joining report on 06.10.2010. Thereafter, the
Petitioner continued to discharge his duty as a Peon.
5. While this was the position, the SC & ST Development
Department, Govt. of Odisha, issued an office order dated
05.12.2017 to regularise the service of many similarly situated
persons, however the case of the Petitioner and similarly situated
other persons were not considered by the government. As a
result of which the Petitioner was compelled to approach the
Competent Authority for consideration of his case for
regularisation of his service. Since the administrative authority
did not pay any give to the grievance of the present Petitioner,
the Petitioner was compelled to approach the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal initially by filing O.A. No.289(C) of
2018 which was subsequently transferred to this Court on the
abolition of the learned OAT. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 09.09.2022 dispose of the WPC(OAC) No.289
of 2018, filed by the Petitioner, with a direction to the Opposite
Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for absorption
of his service against a regularised post within three months.
Despite such order, no steps were taken as a result of which the
Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing
CONTC No.2382 of 2023 which was also disposed of vide order
dated 05.05.2023 granting further four weeks' time to the
Opposite Parties to implement the order. Despite such order, the
Opposite Parties did not comply with the earlier direction which
has compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court again by
filing the present writ application.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner referring to the order dated 12.05.2023 at Annexure-
10 submitted before this Court that many similarly situated
persons who are initially appointed on temporary basis have
been regularised against regularly established post including one
Sri Judhistir Pradhan. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the service of the
Petitioner should have been regularised against a vacant regular
established post of peon. Since no steps in that regard have been
taken as of yet, being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite
Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ application.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no specific instruction in the matter,
however, on perusal of the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto, it appears that the Petitioner had
earlier approached this Court. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 09.09.2022 has already directed to the Opposite
Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner. In the event the
case of the Petitioner has not been considered in terms of order
dated 09.09.2022 as directed by this Court earlier, he will have
no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to
consider the case of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law
within a stipulated period of time.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both
sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, further
taking note of the fact that the similarly situated persons have
already been regularised as per order dated 12.05.2023 at
Annexure-10, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
present writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to
consider the case of the Petitioner for absorption/regularisation
of his service against a regularly established post within a period
of two months from the date of communication of a copy of
today's order. The Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the
grievance of the Petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a
speaking and reasoned order. Such final order be communicated
to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of passing such
order.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
