Petitioner informed the High Court that he had no instruction regarding the regularization of his services. The Court directed him to return if services are not regularized and disposed of the Writ Petition.
Petitioner directed to approach Court again if services are not regularized; Writ Petition disposed of.
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 WPC(OAC) No.893 of 2013
Ranjit Kumar Das
Petitioner(s)
Mr. D. Pattnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa
…. Opposite Party(s)
Mr. U.K. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH ORDER
Order No.
03.03.2022
1. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that he has no instruction as to the regularization of services of Petitioner.
2. Keeping in view the above submission made by the learned counsel for Petitioner, this Court directs, in the event services of the Petitioner has not been regularized as yet, it may be open to him to approach this Court again.
3. This Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biswanath Rath) Judge
A.K. Jena
Page 1 of 1
Ranjit Kumar Das
State of Orissa
Biswanath Rath
A. K. Jena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
