[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ananta Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 9 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4167 of 2026
Ananta Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Sidheswar Mallik
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(i) Direct/order that the period from 1.5.2004 to
4.7.2011 shall be treated as continuity in service and
notional benefits shall be extended to the petitioner in
terms of the judgment dated 27.6.2023 in WP© No.
1093 of 2016.
(ii) Pass such other orders/direction as the Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
the initially the Petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate
Science Teacher in the scale of pay attached to such post.
Accordingly, the Petitioner joined in service w.e.f. 01.03.2000. He
further submitted that the appointment of the Petitioner was
approved by the Director vide order dated 26.06.2010. Thereafter,
the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack passed another order on
05.07.2011 approving the appointment of the Petitioner w.e.f.
01.03.2000. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted
that initially the Petitioner was appointed at Barunei Ucha
Bidyalaya, Purusottampur. The aforesaid school was closed in the
year 2004. Thereafter, the Petitioner and other teaching staff were
adjusted to other school. Accordingly, the Petitioner was adjusted at
Emertidevi Girls High School w.e.f. 05.07.2011.
5. The grievance of the Petitioner in the writ petition is that after
closure of the earlier school although the Petitioner has been
adjusted at a new school i.e. Emertidevi Girls High School, he has
not been given the benefit of continuity of service. Being aggrieved
by such illegal conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to a judgment of this Court in Arakhita Rout & others v.
Government of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.1093 of
2016 vide judgment dated 27th June, 2023 by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, while
deciding an identical issue, in paragraph-10 of such judgment, has
held as follows:-
"For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order under
Annexure-12 is hereby quashed. The opposite party
authorities are directed to pass necessary orders to
adjust the petitioners in any vacant posts available in
other aided schools within a period of two months
and to grant them continuity of service and all other
service benefits notionally. It is made clear that the
petitioners shall not be entitled to any financial
benefits for the period during which they have not
rendered any work till the date of their adjustment as
directed by this Court. In case any of the three
petitioners is found to have attained the age of
superannuation in the meantime, he/she shall also be
granted the benefit only notionally."
While observing thus, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
allowed continuity in service to the Petitioner in that case subject to
rider that the Petitioner shall not be entitled to any financial benefits
for the period during which he has not rendered any work.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended
that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, it appears
that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties for grant
of the benefit of continuity in service. He further submitted that in
the event the Petitioner is directed to approach the competent
authority for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law and in
terms of the above mentioned judgment of this Court, within a
stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful
examination of the background facts of the present case, further
taking into consideration the limited grievance involved in the
present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner
to approach the Opposite Party No.3-District Education Officer,
Cuttack by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the
grounds along with the supporting documents within three weeks
from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do
well to consider the representation of the Petitioner keeping in view
the observation of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Arakhita Rout's case (supra) within a period of eight weeks. The
representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a
speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid stipulated period of
time. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner
within ten days thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
