Allowed¶24

Gopesh Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Dec 2025WP(C)/13035/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of services; retrospective regularization; six years of continuous service; Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013; quashing of order dated 02.03.2024; writ of certiorari; writ of mandamus; consequential benefits; W.P.(C) batch of 2024; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad; follows Rasmi Ranjan Pattanayak & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 2552 of 2023; Umadevi; M.L.Kesari; OJEE; Junior Clerks recruitment rules; age relaxation; qualification relaxation.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order(s) dated 02.03.2024; regularization of the petitioners' services with retrospective effect from the date of completion of six years of continuous service in terms of the Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013, with all consequential benefits within three (3) months. ¶24

Gopesh Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the order(s) dated 02.03.2024 impugned in the respective Writ Petitions should be quashed and the petitioners' services regularized with retrospective effect in terms of the Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Writ Petitions are allowed and the order(s) dated 02.03.2024 impugned in the respective Writ Petitions are quashed.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The aspect of granting age relaxation and relaxation in qualification for regular recruitment cannot be looked into by this Court, as the matter is covered by the decision in W.P.(C) No. 2552 of 2023.

¶22

Key takeaways

The opposite parties are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect from the date on which they completed six years of continuous service in terms of the Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and to grant all consequential benefits within a period of three (3) months.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of eighteen writ petitions before the Orissa High Court (lead case W.P.(C) No.11926 of 2024, Niranjana Pradhan v. State of Odisha & others; coram: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad; order dated 16.12.2025) raising subject matter substantially similar to W.P.(C) No. 2552 of 2023 (Rasmi Ranjan Pattanayak & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr.), disposed of on 17.11.2025. Following that decision - which, relying on the Apex Court observations in Umadevi and M.L.Kesari, had issued a writ of certiorari quashing denial of regularization and a writ of mandamus directing retrospective regularization on completion of six years of continuous service under the Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013 - the Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the order(s) dated 02.03.2024, and directed the opposite parties to regularize the petitioners' services retrospectively from the date of completion of six years of continuous service, with all consequential benefits within three (3) months. The learned AGA's submission that some age relaxation and relaxation in qualification be granted to enable the petitioners to enter regular recruitment was held not open to be looked into, being covered by the earlier decision. No costs.

¶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

Gopesh Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopesh Kumar Rout 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

Gunum Pattanayak Vs State of Odisha