Rahasa Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

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

¶14

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

¶15

“It is therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to file show cause as to why the they shall not be directed to consider the cases of petitioner for regularization along with grant all consequential service and financial benefits to him as admissible to the posts held by him with effect date of approval, as per Judgement dated 27/02/2023 in the matter of Bijay Kumar Behera and others -Versus- state of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.38547 of 2020 within a stipulated time.

¶16

Page 1 of 3.

¶17

In the event of the Opposite Parties fail to file show-cause or show insufficient cause, then the said rule be made absolute and issues a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs directing the opposite parties to regularized the petitioner along with grant all consequential service and financial benefits to the him as admissible to the posts held by him with effect date of approval, as per Judgement dated 27/02/2023 in the matter of Bijay Kumar Behera and others -Versus- state of Odisha and others in W.P. (C) No.38547 of 2020 within a stipulated time.

¶18

And further be pleased to pass any order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper”

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the Petitioner has been working for last thirty-five years uninterruptedly, however, his service has not been regularized although there are regular vacancies in the sanctioned posts. He further contended that the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties on several occasions with a prayer for regularization of his service. The last representation was filed on 25.09.2024 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition before the Opposite Party No.2, however, no decision has been taken on such representation as of now. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In support his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , 2006(4) SCC 1; State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Keshari and others , 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982; Shripal and Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31^st January, 2025

¶20

Page 2 of 3.

¶21

in Civil Appeal Nos.8158-8179 of 2024); and in Jaggo v. Union of India & others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826

¶22

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that on perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the grievance of the Petitioner is still pending for redressal before the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. He further contended that in the event the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 is still pending, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the same in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

Considering such submissions, this Court disposes of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation dated 25.09.2024 of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 to the writ petition by taking into consideration the judgments referred to hereinabove by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. Any decision taken on such representation be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

¶24

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

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶26

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶27

Judge

¶28

S.K. Rout

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 3. Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 22-Apr-2025 18:52:06

Rahasa Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahasa Pradhan 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

Manoj Samal @ Babu Vs State of Odisha

Arjun @ Arjun Behera @ Lokanath Behera Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Samal @ Mantu Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Kumar Panigrahi Vs Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd, Cuttack

Krushna Chandra Parida Vs State of Orissa

Ucchab Sahoo Vs State of Orissa