Disposed¶26

Nalinikanta Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Dec 2025WP(C)/13416/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Notional seniority for contractual service; antedated regularization claim rejected; fresh representation permitted with timelines; W.P.(C)(OAC) No. 1917 of 2015; SLP(C) Nos. 19539-19540 of 2021; SLP(C) No. 10399 of 2020; High Court of Orissa; WP(C) No. 13416 of 2024; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh application before Opposite Party No. 1 for notional seniority from the date of contractual appointment; if moved within three (3) weeks, a lawful decision is to be taken within three (3) months, considering the cited Apex Court judgments if applicable, independently and uninfluenced by the earlier rejection. ¶26

Nalinikanta Das Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, having confined his prayer to notional seniority for the period served as a contractual employee (instead of antedated regularization), is entitled to the benefit of seniority from the date of his contractual appointment. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 (Annexure-12) rejecting the Petitioner's claim, since the claim for seniority for the contractual period was not an issue in the earlier writ petition W.P.(C)(OAC) No. 1917 of 2015.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh application before Opposite Party No. 1 seeking the benefit of seniority from the date of his appointment on contractual basis on notional basis.

¶21

Key takeaways

If such application is moved within three (3) weeks, Opposite Party No. 1 shall take a lawful decision thereon within three (3) months of receipt, taking into consideration the relevancy and effect of the two cited Apex Court judgments, if applicable.ratio¶24
Opposite Party No. 1 was directed to take an independent decision on the claim raised in the present writ petition without being influenced by the earlier rejection.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.) disposed of W.P.(C) No. 13416 of 2024, Nalinikanta Das v. State of Odisha & Ors. The Petitioner challenged the Government order dated 03.05.2024 (Annexure-12) rejecting his claim for antedated regularization; at hearing he confined his prayer to seniority on notional basis for the period worked as a contractual employee, relying on two Apex Court decisions (S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India, SLP(C) Nos. 19539-19540 of 2021; State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, SLP(C) No. 10399 of 2020). Holding that there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order since the seniority claim was not an issue in the earlier writ petition W.P.(C)(OAC) No. 1917 of 2015, the Court granted liberty to make a fresh application to Opposite Party No. 1; if moved within three weeks, a lawful decision is to be taken within three months after considering the relevancy and effect of the cited judgments, if applicable, and uninfluenced by the earlier rejection.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 13416 of 2024

¶2

Nalinikanta Das

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.S. Tripathy (1), Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶10

04.12.2025

¶11

Order No. 09

¶12

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. A. Sahoo, learned counsel and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.03.05.2024 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-12. As per the said order Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of antedated regularization was rejected.

¶15

In course of hearing learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner is no more interested to get the benefit of antedated regularization as was his case in W.P.(C)(OAC) No. 1917 of 2015 and Petitioner confines his prayer to get the benefit of seniority for the period he worked as a contractual employee on notional basis.

¶16

Page 1 of 3.

¶17

4.1. In support of his submission Mr. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel relies on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. etc. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. (SLP(C) Nos. 19539-19540 of 2021 and another decision in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi (SLP(C) No. 10399 of 2020).

¶18

4.2. It is accordingly contended that appropriate order be passed to extend the benefit of seniority for the period Petitioner continued as a contractual employee instead of antedating the date of regularization with all consequential service and financial benefits.

¶19

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since in the earlier writ petition it was the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of antedated regularization and pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, his claim has been rejected, the prayer made by the learned Sr. Counsel to extend the benefit of seniority only since was not the issue in the earlier writ petition, such a prayer cannot be allowed.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and the fact that Petitioner now confines his prayer only to get the benefit of seniority for the period he discharged his duty as contractual period and the same was not an issue in W.P.(C)(OAC) No. 1917 of 2015, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.03.05.2024 so issued under Annexure-12 in rejecting such claim of the Petitioner.

¶21

6.1. However, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to make a fresh application before Opp. Party No. 1 to get the benefit of

¶22

Page 2 of 3.

¶23

seniority from the date he was so appointed on contractual basis on notional basis.

¶24

6.2. It is observed that, if any such application is moved within a period of three (3) weeks hence before Opp. Party No. 1, the said Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. While taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the judgment so cited (supra) be taken into consideration, if it is applicable. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the judgments in the above noted two cases with his representation for compliance.

¶25

6.3. Opp. Party No. 1 is directed to take an independent decision with regard to the claim now being raised by the Petitioner in the present writ petition and that too without being influenced by the earlier rejection.

¶26

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶27

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶28

Sneha

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 10-Dec-2025 19:05:41

¶31

Page 3 of 3.

Nalinikanta Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalinikanta Das 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

Sanjay Kumar Das Vs State of Orissa

Jagamohan Ojha Vs the Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Bbsr

Pitambar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Juli Patel Vs State of Odisha

Bhagirathi Sahoo Vs Salini Pandit,Ias

Siddheswar Behera Vs State of Odisha