Petitioners sought appointment as Sikhya Sahayakas and regularization benefits per an earlier Odisha HC judgment. The court directed the respondent to decide the pending application within three months without reviewing merits.
Direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to decide the petition within three months and communicate results.
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.4345 of 2023
Bijay Kumar Panda & Ors.
Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
…. Opposite Parties
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
22.02.2023
Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3 . The Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-
“In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to filed show cause as to why a Writ/Writs in the nature of Writ of Mandamus shall not been issued directing the Opposite Parties to extend the benefits of the Judgement dated. 05.03.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 31679 of 2011 i.e. to absorb the petitioners as Sikhya Sahayakas w.e.f. their date of engagement under Annexure-I Series i.e. dtd.28.06.2008 pursuant to resolution dtd.16.02.2008 and to extend all the benefits of regularization of service after three years of completion of Service as Junior Teacher and thereafter
// 2 //
Regular Teacher after three years and to give all the benefits as admissible to the post of Sikhya Sahayakas in the light of judgment of Dhanjaya Charan Dey Vs. State of Orissa, within a stipulated time.
And, further be pleased to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper.
And, for the act of kindness, the petitioners shall remain ever pray.”
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that through highlighting their grievances, the Petitioners have filed an application at Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition before the O.P. No. 1, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that a direction be issued to Opposite Party No. 1 to take a decision on the above noted Petition within a specific time period.
5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs Opposite Party No. 1 to take a decision on the above noted petition in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioners.
6 . The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Sneha
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the State to appoint petitioners as Sikhya Sahayakas with regularization benefits.
Whether the petitioners should be absorbed as Junior/Regular Teachers with benefits of a prior judgment.
Whether the State authorities must decide on the petition within a specified time.
BIJAY KUMAR PANDA
STATE OF ODISHA
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
