The High Court of Odisha disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order cancelling antedated regularization of service. The court applied the ratio of a prior judgment where similar service regularization was upheld, granting relief based on precedent.
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. 35229 of 2020
Krushna Prasad Prusty
…. Petitioner
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
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 petitioner is 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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the order regarding cancellation of antedated regularization of service and direct non-action on such cancellation.
Whether the petitioner is covered by the ratio of the earlier judgment in W.P.(C) No. 34606 of 2020.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manas Ranjan Pattnaik and others v. State of Odisha and othersApplied¶19
W.P.(C) No. 34606 of 2020
Krushna Prasad Prusty
State of Odisha
B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
