Narottam Dash Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶17

“It is therefore prayed that your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Opp.parties for regular absorption of the petitioner as regular peon night watchman in the alternate to regularise his against the regular existing vacant post of peon in the office of CDPO, Sonepur for the interest of justice for the ends of justice

¶18

And pleased to pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper.”

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

On perusal of the record it appears that the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36475 of 2022 with a prayer for regularization of his service. Since the Petitioner had not approached the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, this Court vide order dated 10.01.2023 disposed of the writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the Collector, Sonepur, Opposite Party No.2 ventilating his grievance with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider such representation of the Petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of such order.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that although the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a representation. However, the same has not been considered by the Opposite Party No.2. Being aggrieved by such inaction the Petitioner has approached this Court once again by filing the present writ application.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner had earlier submitted representation pursuant to the order dated 10.01.2023. He further contended that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to file a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the same in accordance with law, then he will have no objection to the same.

¶23

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in view the nature of the grievance involved in the writ application, this Court deems it proper

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation along with supporting documents and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka –v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 & Secretary, State of Karnataka –v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others , reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826 , in Sripal and Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31^st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal No.81588179 of 2024 along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgments. The representation of the Petitioner shall be considered and disposed of within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such a decision.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶27

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶28

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶29

Anil

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Page 3 of 3. Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Apr-2025 11:35:54

Narottam Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narottam Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susil Kumar Baral Vs Amit Kumar Garg,Ceo,Tpsodl,Ganjam

Dr. Swapna Sarit Vs State of Odisha

Muralidhar Sethi Vs Dipesh Patnaik, I.P.S.

Dillip Kumar Sahoo Vs Tpcodl Tp Central, Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bbsr

Zedking Security Services, Bbsr Vs Epfo, Bbsr

Ranjit Kumar Khilar Vs State of Odisha