Allowed

Gunum Pattanayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Dec 2025WP(C)/12139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions seeking regularization of services were allowed following the earlier decision in Rasmi Ranjan Pattanayak v. State of Odisha, which relied on the Apex Court's observations in Umadevi and M.L.Kesari and the Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 02.03.2024 quashed; OPs directed to regularize petitioners' services retrospectively per Resolution dated 17.09.2013 with consequential benefits within three months.

Gunum Pattanayak Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.11926 of 2024

¶3

Niranjana Pradhan

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. N. Rath, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 03.

16.12.2025

W.P.(C) No.11926, 12026, 12139, 13035, 14328, 14502, 14505, 14511, 14514, 14516, 14519, 14524, 14638, 14649, 14654, 14657, 14660 & 14664 of 2024

¶16

The subject matter of these petitions is substantially similar to the one in W.P.(C) No. 2552 of 2023 between Rasmi Ranjan Pattanayak & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr. , disposed off vide order dated 17.11.2025, wherein Paragraphs-4 & 5 read as under:

¶17

“ 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 specifically provides for bringing regularization of services of persons, who have put in six years of spotless service to their credit continuously. Therefore, by relying on observations of the Apex Court in Umadevi & M.L.Kesari supra, the impugned order is stuck with legal infirmities and therefore, liable to be rejected.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners is more than justified in submitting that OP No.2 himself having

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

recommended the case of his clients for regularization, the impugned order could not have been mindlessly passed. In fact, learned counsel draws attention of the Court to the note of Chairman, OJEE dated 28.01.2022, wherein paragraph-11 reads as under:

¶21

“11. In the event of regularization of the services of these two DEOs, there will be a financial implication of about Rs. 5,92,872/- per annum (Detailed calculation of the financial implication is furnished in Annexure-1). The annual budget of OJEE is in the tune of Rs.10 crores. Thus, the small amount of Rs. 5,92,872/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety two thousand eight hundred seventy two) only per annum towards the salary of these two persons can be met from OJEE fund without any financial burden on the State exchequer.”

¶22

Learned AGA appearing for the OPs submits that there is a set of rules promulgated for the recruitment to the posts of Junior Clerks and therefore, some age relaxation and relaxation in terms of qualification may be granted to the petitioners, so that they would go into the fray of regular recruitment. This aspect cannot be looked into by this Court, inasmuch as matter is covered by the decision as observed above, wherein the operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶23

“In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order whereby regularization has been denied to the petitioners. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the OPs to regularize the services of petitioners with retrospective effect from the date on which they completed six years of continuous service in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and to grant all consequential benefits to them within a period of three months, failing which petitioners may move an application for levying heavy costs on the concerned officials payable from their pocket for the delay brooked.”

¶24

In the above circumstances, Writ Petitions are allowed. The order (s) dated 02.03.2024 impugned in the respective Writ Petitions is quashed. The OPs are directed to regularize the services of these petitioners with retrospective effect from the

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

date on which they completed six years of continuous service in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and to grant all consequential benefits within a period of three (3) months.

¶27

Now, no costs.

¶28

Web copy of the order to the acted upon by all concerned.

¶29

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶30

Anisha

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Dec-2025 16:40:05

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Gunum Pattanayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunum Pattanayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjib Singh Barik Vs State of Orissa

Ritarani Jena Vs State of Orissa

Khageswar Pande Vs State of Odisha

Amitav Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Satya Narayan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Gopesh Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha