[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Satyabrata Behera vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 23 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18762 of 2023
Satyabrata Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 23.02.2026
10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the rejection of the Petitioner's claim to get
the benefit of regularization vide the impugned order
dtd.26.08.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under
Annexure-7.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that claiming benefit of regularization,
Petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.11081 of
2020. This Court vide order dtd.25.04.2022 under
Annexure-6 while disposing the Writ Petition issued the
following direction so contained in Para-19 of the orders:-
"19. Finally after taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the present case and keeping in view
the aforesaid analysis of law, this Court is of the
// 2 //
considered view that the case of
regularization/absorption of service of the Petitioner and
similarly other persons needs to be reconsidered by the
State Government as has been recommended by the
Opposite Party No.2 in its letter dated 29.06.2018
under Annexure-5 and keeping in view the direction of
the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2790 of
2015 dated 22.07.2016. Accordingly, this Court directs
the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of
regularization of service of the Petitioner and if
necessary regular post of Junior/Senior Stenographers
be created in the Office of the cadre P.P./A.P.P. with the
concurrence of the Finance Department in accordance
with law within a period of four months from today. It is
further directed that the service of the Petitioner shall
not be substituted by another set of contractual
employee by whatever means including outsourcing
basis till such regular posts are created and a policy be
framed and adopted for appointment of regular
Stenographers in the Office of the cadre P.P./A.P.Ps."
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that without complying the order in letter and
spirit and instead of creating the post with due
concurrence of the Finance Department as directed, claim
of the Petitioner was rejected, only on the ground that at
the time of his appointment as a contractual employee
since Petitioner had given an undertaking that he will not
claim for regularization in future, Petitioner is not eligible
and entitled to get the benefit.
4.2. It is contended that since the ground on which,
Petitioner's claim has been rejected, is not in terms of the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11081 of 2020,
the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the
matter requires a fresh consideration.
// 3 //
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the
other hand while supporting the impugned order
contended that since Petitioner at the time of his initial
appointment had furnished an undertaking that he will
not claim any regularization in future, in view of the said
undertaking, claim of the Petitioner has been rightly
rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court
finds that after being appointed as a contractual Sr.
Stenographer vide order dtd.31.03.2003 under
Annexure-2, Petitioner on the face of such long
continuance when was not regularized, he approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11081 of 2020. This Court
vide order dtd.25.04.2022 under Annexure-6, while
disposing the Writ Petition directed the Opposite Parties
to consider the claim of the Petitioner with due creation of
the posts and by taking prior concurrence of the Finance
Department. This Court also protected the interest of the
Petitioner vide the said order.
6.1. However, it is found that only on the ground that
Petitioner since had given an undertaking at the time of
his initial appointment that he will not claim any
regularization in future, Petitioner's claim has been
rejected vide the impugned order dtd.26.08.2022 under
Annexure-7.
// 4 //
6.2. This Court taking into account the nature of order
passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition and the
ground of rejection of his claim vide the impugned order
is of the view that order passed by this Court has not at
all been followed while rejecting the Petitioner's claim.
6.3. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis, this
Court is inclined to quash order dtd.26.08.2022 so
passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7. While
quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to
Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the
Petitioner's claim, strictly in terms of order
dtd.25.04.2022 so passed in W.P.(C) No.11081 of 2020
under Annexure-6. This Court directs Opposite Party
No.1 to pass a fresh order within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of this order as directed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
