This judge disposed of the petition in terms of a previous decision regarding the regularization of service for medical health workers by quashing the order cancelling antedated regularization.
Writ petition disposed of in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 34606 of 2020.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 35061 of 2020
Santosh Kumar Panda and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
30.09.2021
Order No. 04
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Page 1 of 2
orders of antedation or regularization of MPHW (M) and MPHW (F) and this Court directed that they shall be deemed to be continuing in service on regularization as before from the date they have completed six years of contractual service as per order dated 01.10.2018. He further contended that the present petitioners are covered by the said decision and the writ petition may be disposed in terms of the ratio decided in the said case, to which learned counsel for the State has no objection.
and others ).
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
Arun
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the ratio decided in W.P.(C) No. 34606 of 2020.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manas Ranjan Pattnaik and others v. State of OdishaFollowed¶19
W.P.(C) No. 34606 of 2020
Santosh Kumar Panda and others
State of Odisha and others
B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
