[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bindu Raj vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 20 March, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.37692 of 2020
Bindu Raj .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
20.03.2026
Order No.
05. 1. Heard Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner
challenging the impugned decision by order dated 3rd
December, 2020 of opposite party No.3 under Annexure-8 and
for a direction to treat her as a regular employee w.e.f. 20 th
July, 2004 in view of the order dated 29th December, 2018
under Annexure-7 and to consider grant of consequential
service and financial benefits as admissible to her on the
ground stated.
3. As no counter affidavit is filed till date, the matter is
taken up for hearing and final disposal with the consent of
learned counsels for both the sides.
4. As pleaded on record, the petitioner was appointed as a
Pharmacist on contractual basis vide Annexure-1 and his
service was extended from time to time and ultimately, she was
regularized w.e.f. 1st January, 2007 by the order of opposite
party No.3 dated 30th December, 2006 at Annexure-3. It is
further pleaded that with effect from 1st January, 2007, the
petitioner continued on regular basis and availed all such
benefits. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that juniors to the petitioner received regularization in service
from an anterior date vide Annexures-4 and 5. It is contended
that such regularization was allowed w.e.f. 20th July, 2004 and
8th January, 2001 in respect of one Pranati Panda and Ranjit
Kumar Panda vide Annexures-4 and 5 respectively and
therefore, she approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.4836(C) of 2011 and it
was disposed of vide Annexure-6. The submission is that
pursuant to the order dated 7th March, 2018 in the OA as per
Annexure-6, opposite party No.3 allowed regularization of the
petitioner's service w.e.f. 20th July, 2004 instead of 1st January,
2007 but suddenly thereafter cancelled the order of
regularization w.e.f. 3rd December, 2020 under Annexure-8.
The contention is that no notice was issued to the petitioner and
without providing an opportunity to her, the impugned decision
vide Annexure-8 was taken by opposite party No.3, hence, the
same is a nullity in the eye of law. It is submitted that in view
of the interim order, Annexure-8 has been stayed and the
petitioner was allowed to continue in regular service till today.
It is lastly contended that such a decision of opposite party
No.3 cannot be sustained in law since it is also not supported
by any reason. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in
Canara Bank and others Vrs. Shri Debasis Das and others
AIR 2003 SC 2041, Mr. Swain, learned counsel would submit
that principle of natural justice has not been followed in the
case of the petitioner as any such cancellation in regularization
of service invites civil consequences and the law is well settled
that even an administrative order with such consequence must
be consistent with the rules of natural justice as has been held
therein. So, therefore, the contention is that the impugned order
dated 3rd December, 2020 vide Annexure-8 is liable to be
interfered with and quashed in the interest of justice.
5. Recorded the submission of Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for
the State.
6. On a bare reading of the impugned order as at
Annexure-8, the Court finds that no reason has been assigned
while directing cancellation of regularization order by opposite
party No.3. Such a decision by the Authority concerned, in the
considered view of the Court, is untenable. This Court proceeds
on the premise that there has been no notice issued to the
petitioner before directing cancellation of regularization vide
Annexure-8. Any such decision even by an administrative order
must reveal the reason behind the same. In the case at hand,
when the service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 27th
July, 2004 in supersession of the earlier order, it is not revealed
from Annexure-8 as to what prevailed upon opposite party
No.3 to cancel the regularization itself. It is always expected
from an Authority while dealing the matters on administrative
side to assign reason as any such decision like the present one
that invites civil consequences. It was quite but natural for the
petitioner to expect such a decision with assigned reasons.
Furthermore, the petitioner claimed to have received no notice.
In fact, Annexure-8 does not reveal anything whether with any
such notice was issued to the petitioner and after providing her
an opportunity of hearing that the cancellation of regularization
was directed. The Apex Court in Canara Bank (supra)
categorically held and observed that any such administrative
decision which involves civil consequences shall have to be
consistent with the rules of natural justice. It has been held
therein that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great
deal of change in the recent years. While outlining the
principles and rules embodied, it is observed therein that the
distinction between a judicial act and administrative order has
withered away and therefore, when any such administrative
decision involves consequences of civil nature, it shall have to
be by observing the rules of natural justice. In the case of the
petitioner, there has been a glaring deviation as opposite party
No.3 neither provided the petitioner any opportunity of hearing
before considering cancellation of regularization nor deemed it
proper to assign reasons for such a decision. Thus, therefore,
the inevitable conclusion of this Court is that the impugned
order vide Annexure-8 deserves to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 3rd December,
2020 by opposite party No.3 as at Annexure-8 is hereby
quashed. It is further directed that opposite party No.3 shall
immediately release all the consequential service and financial
benefits to the petitioner as she is entitled to as per Annexure-7
and to conclude the above exercise as soon as possible
preferably by the end of April, 2026.
9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
