[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Hemanta Kumar Rout vs State Of Odisha And Othrs ..... Opposite ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.36779 of 2025
Hemanta Kumar Rout ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Laxmikanta Mohanty
-versus-
State Of Odisha and othrs ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.03.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Per used the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has
sought for the following relief.
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp.
Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why A
direction shall not be issued to quash the order of
rejection dated 09.12.2025 issued by Opp. Party No.3
under Annexure-12 and why a direction shall not be
issued to regularize the service of the petitioner as a
T.G. Teacher w.e.f. 26.12.2014 instead of 8.09.2015
taking into consideration his date of joining as
contractual teacher dated 26.12.2008 by modifying the
order dated 21.10.2024 issued 0pp. Party No. 3 under
Annexure-8 taking into consideration the order dated
8.9.2015 issued by 0pp. Party no. 3 under Annexure- 4
granting regularization retrospectively from the date of
completion of six years of service and release all
consequential service and financial benefits including
seniority in junior SES Cadre;
ii) And after hearing the parties be pleased to quash the
order of rejection dated 09.12.2025 issued by Opp.
party No.3 under Annexure-12 and direct the opp.
Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner as T.G.
Teacher w.e.f. 26.12.2014 instead of 8.9.2015 by
modifying the order dated 21.10.2024 under Annexure-8
and release all consequential service and financial
benefits including seniority in the junior SES Cadre.
iii) The opp. Parties be directed to calculate and release
all arrears from 26.12.2014 to 8.9.2015 ; within a date
to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
iv) And/ or pass any other order (s)/ direction(s) as
would deem fit and proper;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall
as in duty bound, ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner was initially appointed as a TGT (Science) Teacher on
contractual basis with effect from 15.12.2008. Pursuant to the
aforesaid appointment order, the Petitioner joined his service with
effect from 26.12.2008. He further contended that the Petitioner was
disengaged from service by the Opposite Party No.3 with effect from
17.09.2009 as the Petitioner got entangled in a criminal case. After
his disengagement, the petitioner pursued the criminal litigation and
by virtue of a judgment dated 03.04.2010, the Petitioner has been
acquitted of false charges in the abovenoted criminal case.
5. After his acquittal in the criminal case, the Petitioner was
given a fresh engagement with effect from 01.07.2011. Being
aggrieved by such order of fresh engagement the Petitioner initially
approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.
No.3810(c) of 2014. After abolition of the Tribunal the O.A.
application to transfer of this Court and was re-registered as WPC
(OAC) Case No.3810 of 2014.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that some of the persons who stand in similar footing with
the Petitioner and were appointed along with the Petitioner, have
been regularized in service in the meantime. The abovenoted
WPC(OAC) No.3810 of 2014, after being heard by the coordinate
Bench, was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.04.2022 by directing
the opposite parties therein to regularize the service of the Petitioner
on completion of six years of service with effect from 08.09.2015.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that taking into consideration the date of initial appointment of the
Petitioner with effect from 26.12.2008 the services of the Petitioner
have been regularized by taking into consideration six years of
service with effect from 26.12.2014. However, inadvertently in the
order dated 20.04.2022 at Annexure-5 the date of regularization has
been mentioned as 08.09.2015. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at
this juncture contended that although the Petitioner is entitled to be
regularized in service with effect from 26.12.2014, his service was
regularized with effect from 08.09.2015 as per the order dated
20.04.2022 passed in WPC(OAC) No.3810 of 2014.
On a careful analysis of the case of the Petitioner, this Court is
of the view that the only grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to
the date of his regularization. By filing the present writ application
the Petitioner has sought for a direction to the Opposite Parties to
ante-date his date of regularization from 08.09.2015 to 26.12.2024.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
on the face of judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed in WPC(OAC)
No.3810 of 2014 the Opposite Parties could not have antedated the
date of regularization of Petitioner's service with effect from
26.12.2014. Although in the meantime, the Petitioner approached the
Opposite Parties by filing a representation pursuant to order dated
23.04.2025 in WPC No.10675 of 2025, learned counsel for the State
further contended, that such application could not have been
entertained in view of the judgment dated 20.04.2025. It was also
contended that there is specific direction by the learned coordinate
Bench in its judgment dated 20.04.2022 to regularize the service of
the Petitioner with effect from 08.09.2015. As such, learned counsel
for the State contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed
any illegality.
9. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned
counsel for both sides, on a careful examination of the documents
annexed to the writ application, further keeping in view the nature of
the grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application, this
Court is of the view that the Opposite Parties have not committed
any illegality in regularizing the service of the petitioner with effect
from 08.09.2015 pursuant to the judgment dated 20.04.2022, at
Annexure-5 to the writ application. In such view of the matter, this
Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ application.
However, while disposing of the present writ application this Court
grants liberty to the Petitioner to move the appropriate Bench either
by filing an application seeking modification in the safe of review
subject to limitation, if any, seeking correction of the date as has
been mentioned in Para-15 of the order dated 20.04.2022.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
