[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Sradhanjali Mohapatra on 11 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 1909 of 2025
State of Odisha and Others .... Appellants
Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, AGA
-versus-
Sradhanjali Mohapatra .... Respondents
Mr. Rama Krishna Bisoi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 11.03.2026
01. The State and its officials have filed this Intra-Court
appeal calling in question the learned Single Judge's order dated
09.07.2024 whereby the Respondent-employee's W.P.(C) No.
15206 of 2023 having been favoured, relief has been conferred
on her as under:
"5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the back
ground facts as well as materials on record, this Court is of
the view that the case of the petitioner since covered by the
cases referred to herein above, the Authority concerned shall
do well to regularize her services as per the Rules."
2. The appeal is moved after brooking a delay of 483 days
and an application in I.A. No. 4687 of 2025 supported by
affidavit has been filed accompanying the appeal.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the appeal papers and also the delay application, we
decline indulgence in the matter with some observations for the
following reasons:
3.1 Firstly, we do not propose to examine merits of the main
matter inasmuch as delay has not been properly explained in the
application in I.A. No.4687 of 2025 supported by affidavit in
respect 483 days. In several such cases, we have held therein
that the law relating to condonation of delay cannot be leniently
construed merely because the applicants happen to be the State
& its entities. If the law makers wanted leniency, they would
have made appropriate provision to that effect. Therefore, the
application itself is liable to be rejected for want of sufficient
cause.
3.2 The above being said, we also have undertaken deeper
examination of the matter so that the due justice is done to the
Respondent- employee who is in the Group-C being a lady
Nurse. She was appointed on contract basis w.e.f. 29.12.1999.
She secured regularization order dated 07.04.2021 wherein the
regularization was w.e.f. 07.04.2015. Therefore, she had
petitioned and the learned Single Judge said that it should be
immediately after six years of joining date as has been provided
in the resolution dated 17.09.2013. Learned Single Judge has
rightly granted the relief to the effect that the respondent's
regularization has to be with retrospective effect i.e. with effect
from the date she completed six years of service on contract
basis.
3.3 We, are also impressed by the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge inasmuch as he has rightly chosen to follow a
Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4099 of
2021 between State of Odisha Vs. Ajay Kumar Behera disposed
off on 20.04.2021, wherein paragraphs 12 & 13 read as under:
"12. Mr. R.K. Bisoi, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the pleadings of the Petitioners-State are
factually incorrect. Drawing attention of the Court to the
Letter No.3949/H &FW-(IW)-78/2018 Bhubaneswar dated
13.02.2019 of the Government of Orissa, Health and Family
Welfare Department, he further submits that the Deputy
Secretary to Government of Odisha, Health and Family
Welfare Department requested the Chief District Medical and
Public Health Officer, Khordha to take appropriate steps for
implementation of the order of the Tribunal in favour of the
Opposite Party Nos.1 to 6 only if and otherwise admissible
under intimation to this Department. The concurrence of the
Law Department vide UOR No.114 dated 22.01.2019 was
also taken.
13. It is well-settled principles of law that an order which has
already been executed or already been complied with should
not be allowed to be challenged by the party who was
directed to implement the same. But, in exceptional cases
like in the case of fraud or forgery, a party may be allowed to
challenge the same because fraudulent transaction vitiates all
solemn acts. But herein the case there is no such case of
fraud. We also do not find any substantial reason for the
implementing authority to again seek for setting aside of the
order."
In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of
merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is. The
appellants to give effect to the order of the learned Single Judge
and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court
within an outer limit of three (3) months, failing which the
concerned officials are at the risk of contempt proceedings.
Registry shall send a copy of this order to the respondent by
speed posts.
Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
AKPradhan/Priyanka
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 12-Mar-2026 16:49:15
