Kamalakanta Ghosh vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              WP(C) No.4449 of 2026
            Kamalakanta Ghosh               .....   Petitioner
                                                           Represented by Adv. -
                                                           Sukanta Kumar Mishra

                                          -versus-
            State Of Odisha and others           .....        Opposite Parties
                                                         Represented by Adv. -

                                                         Mr. S.S. Routray, ASC

                                 CORAM:
                  MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

10.02.2026 Order No.

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 Government Advocate for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief;

"Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to direct the 0pp. Parties to regularize/approve the appointment of the petitioner retrospectively and grant him all the consequential service and financial benefits from 01.12.2003 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 7197 of 2019 under annexure-17 by modifying the approval order under annexure-13.

And further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to open the GPF

Account of the petitioner so as to enable him to get pension after his retirement.

And/or pas any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the fitness of the case.

And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as 4 th Peon at Raghunath Academy, Saraswatipuri in the district of Balasore to manage the day to day work of the school on 26.12.1990. The Managing Committee of the school promoted the senior most peon of the School to the post of Daftary and at the stage, the Petitioner against the said post by the order dated 10.12.1993. With effect from 16.12.1993, the Managing Committee of the school appointed the Petitioner as first Peon of the School, after the senior most peon of the School was promoted to the post of Daftary and accordingly submitted a proposal before the Inspector of School, Balasore for approval.

5. While the matter stood thus the Petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No.4461 of 1996. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated l2.11.1996 directed the Opposite Party to consider the claim of the Petitioner. Since no action was taken therein, the Petitioner again compelled to approached the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.500(C) of 2013, which was though initially filed before the Cuttack Bench, it was subsequently transferred to the Bhubaneswar Bench and renumbered as OA No.2398 of 2015, the above noted OA was allowed by the learned Tribunal and the Opposite Parties were directed to regularize the service of the Petitioner as a Peon in the

above noted school with all consequential service and financial benefits.

6. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 24.05.2019, passed in the above noted OA, the State-Opposite Party preferred a writ petition before this Court which was numbered as W.P.(C) No.31781 of 2020. Vide order dated 13.12.2022, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the authority to implement the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the same was disposed of with certain modification. Since the order was not being implemented the Petitioner was again compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13966 of 2023 which was disposed of vide the order of a coordinate Bench of this Court by directing the Opposite Parties to implement the order passed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing contempt application for implementation of the order. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that although a direction has been given by the learned OAT to regularize the service of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party has regularization of the service of the Petitioner prospectively with effect from 13.06.2024. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

7. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Odisha and others vs. Bhakta Ranjan Dixit and another in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7197 of 2019 disposed of vide order dated 16.04.2024. Referring to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that

the State appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging similar order regularizing and directing regularization of service the Peon in the school was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the modification that the respondent-claimant shall be entitled to arrear salary to be computed on expiry of three months reckoned from 29th August, 2003 i.e. the Petitioner is entitled to the arrear salary with effect from 01.12.2003. It was also directed that no recovery shall be made from the Respondent in respect of the amounts which has already been released in their favour. In view of the aforesaid order passed in the case of Bhakta Ranjan Dixit's case (supra) and a batch of application by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the decision of the Opposite Party to regularize the service of the Petitioner prospectively with effect from 13.06.2024 at Annexure-13 is required to be reviewed.

8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and keeping in view the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court submitted that the Petitioner should have approached the Opposite Party first before approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. He further submitted that in the event, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Annexure-17, he has no objection to the same.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the

background facts as well as keeping in view, the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhakta Ranjan Dixit's case (supra) at Annexure-17 to the writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation within three weeks' from today. In such eventuality, Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider such representation, keeping in view the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Bhakta Ranjan Dixit's case (supra) and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks from the date, the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir

Designation: Personal Assistant