Sabita Nayak Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.11120 of 2025

¶3

Sabita Nayak

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. - Dibyajyoti Nayak

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Nac, Nimapara , Executive Officer Represented By Adv. – 3) Director, Housing And Urban Ms.Sasmita Nayak,ASC Devlopment

¶8

1. Executive Officer, Nimapara Nac

¶9

1. Public Information Officer, Nimapara Nac, Nimapara

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

29.04.2025

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:

¶19

“It is prayed, therefore, that this Hon’ble Court

¶20

Page 1 of 4.

¶21

may graciously be pleased to:-

¶22

a) Admit the writ application.

¶23

b) Call for the records.

¶24

c) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why direction shall not be given to the Opp.Parties to regularise the service of the Petitioner as a regular sweeper in the office of NAC Nimapara, Puri with all consequential service benefits within a stipulated period fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶25

d) If the Opp.Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute and a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) be issued to the Opp.Parties to regularise the service of the Petitioner as a regular sweeper in the Office of NAC Nimapara, Puri with all consequential service benefits within a stipulated period fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶26

And pass any other order which will be deemed

¶27

fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

¶28

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that although there are regular vacancies in the post in which the Petitioner has been engaged on contractual basis. He further submitted that although she has worked for 17 years and there are regular vacancies, the case of the Petitioner was not considered for her regularisation.

¶29

In course of hearing of the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has submitted representation dated 29.10.2024 before the Director, Housing & Urban Development, Govt. of Odisha, Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-3 and submitted

¶30

Page 2 of 4.

¶31

representation dated 29.10.2024 before the Executive Officer, Nimapara N.A.C., Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said representations are pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 to consider the representations of the Petitioner under Annexures-3 & 4 within a stipulated period of time.

¶32

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that he has no objection if the representations of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶33

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexures3 & 4 6 taking into consideration the order dated 05.05.2023 passed in WPC(OAC) No.3122 of 2018 confirmed in W.A.No.319 of 2024 vide judgment dated 07.03.2025 within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexures-3 & 4 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be also communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days thereafter. It is further directed that till a decision is taken on the representation of the Petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner by the

¶34

Page 3 of 4.

¶35

Opposite Parties.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶37

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶38

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶39

RKS

¶40

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Apr-2025 17:19:03

Sabita Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabita Nayak 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

Kailash Chandra Behera Vs Jyoti Ranjan Mishra, Director Elementary Education

Sudhir Pradhan Vs Y.B.Khurania,Ips

Nagendra Dehury Vs Y.B.Khurania,Ips

Superintending Engineer, Bhanjanagar Irrigation Div, Ganjam Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Ii, Epfo, Ganjam

Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Anandini Acharya Vs State of Odisha