Disposed¶21

Subhadra Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Regularization – Lady Matron – Writ of mandamus – Demand and rejection

Orissa HC22 Aug 2025WP(C)/23176/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court at Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.23176 of 2025; Subhadra Pradhan v. State of Orissa and others; decided 22.08.2025 by Dixit Krishna Shripad, J. Keywords: regularization; Lady Matron; writ of mandamus; demand and rejection; similar matter notice; representation; subject rules; G.A Department Resolution dated 12.11.2013; Annexure-4; service and financial benefits; three months; contentions kept open; disposed with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation seeking regularization as Lady Matron; the jurisdictional opposite parties to take a call on it within an outer limit of three (3) months; all contentions of the parties kept open; no costs. ¶21

Subhadra Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of her service as Lady Matron w.e.f. 19.08.2021 (on completion of six years of service), together with release of all service and financial benefits, with reference to the G.A Department Resolution dated 12.11.2013. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate representation in terms of the subject rules seeking regularization; if such a representation is made, the jurisdictional opposite parties shall take a call on it within an outer limit of three (3) months, with all contentions of the parties kept open and no costs.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

No mandamus can be issued where there is no demand and rejection; the circumstance that notice was issued in a similar matter does not justify issuance of notice in this case.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regularization – Lady Matron – Writ of mandamus – Demand and rejection – Liberty to represent. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court, the petitioner sought a direction to regularize her service as Lady Matron w.e.f. 19.08.2021 on completion of six years of service, taking note of the G.A Department Resolution dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-4), and to release all service and financial benefits. The Court observed that, there being no demand and rejection, no mandamus could be issued, and that issuance of notice in a similar matter did not warrant notice in this case. Disposing of the petition, the Court permitted the petitioner to make an appropriate representation in terms of the subject rules seeking regularization; if made, the jurisdictional opposite parties are to take a call on it within an outer limit of three (3) months, with all contentions kept open and no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.23176 of 2025

¶3

Subhadra Pradhan

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. M.R. Pradhan, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Orissa and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. U.C. Behera, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 01.

22.08.2025

Petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court with the following prayer.

¶16

“i) a direction shall not be issued to regularize the service of the petitioner against the post of Lady Matron from the date of completion of six years of service w.e.f. 19.08,2021 taking note of the G.A Department Resolution dated 12.11.2013 under Annexure -4 and release all service and financial benefits w.e.f. 19.08.2021.

¶17

ii) And after hearing the parties be pleased to direct the opp. parties to regularize the service of the petitioner as Lady Matron w.e.f. 19.08.2021 And release all service and financial benefits within a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶18

When asked as to whether any writ of mandamus can be issued, there being no demand and rejection, the petitioner only quotes and quotes that in a similar matter notice has been issued

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

and therefore, in this matter also notice should be issued. This Court has not agreed with that proposition, law being what it is.

¶21

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to make appropriate representation in terms of subject rules seeking regularization and if one is made, the jurisdictional OPs shall take a call on the same within an outer limit of three (3) months. In that connection, all contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶22

Now, no costs.

¶23

Web copy of this order be acted upon by all concerned.

¶24

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶25

Anisha

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 17:43:21

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Subhadra Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhadra 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarojini Ray Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Mahendranath Patnaik Vs Vice Chairman,Bda,Bbsr

Bharat Kumar Pati Vs State of Odisha

Prajnya Parimita Barik Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Namita Satapathy Vs State of Odisha