Prakash Reddy Vs the Registrar, Utkal Universtiy, Bbsr

“Therefore, it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit this case and issue notice to the Opp. Parties to file their show cause as to why the case of the Petitioner shall not be allowed and after hearing the parties, the case of the petitioner be allowed and pass necessary order to set aside Annexure-8 dated 22.06.2023 and necessary direction be given to the opp. Parties No.1, 2 & 3 to take steps to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 27.02.1988 as has been done in case of the similarly placed employee namely Parikhita Mallick and Gadadhar Sethy and financial and

¶15

Page 1 of 1

¶16

consequential benefit to that effect be sanctioned and disbursed within a stipulated period”

¶17

2. The short and sweet of the petition is that the date of regularization of petitioner should to be with effect from 27.02.1988 when he gained entry in service, may be on daily wage basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that several persons were engaged on daily wage basis, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-1 wherein the name of his client figures at Sl. No.104; all others barring a few came to be regularized in service with effect from the date of their entry into service whereas his client has been meted out a step-motherly treatment, inasmuch as he has been given 18.03.2011 as the date of regularization when it ought to have been 27.02.1988. Counsel draws attention of the Court to petitioner-s earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No.36240 of 2022 disposed off on 09.01.2023.

¶18

3. Learned panel counsel for the University, in his usual style, opposes the petition contending that his client being a State-University, it depends upon the funds to be given by the State Government; any appointments would require funds since an appointee has to be given salary/emoluments; same is the case when a daily wager is regularized in service since he

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

attains the status of regular employee and eventually, there shall be amelioration of drawals. He tells the Court that though the petitioner was given order of regularization on 06.02.2014, he first approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.36240 of 2022, which was disposed of on 09.01.2023 and therefore, even if regularization is to be effective from the date of entry into service, it has to be only on notional basis is broadly acceptable to this Court. Therefore, he contends the interference of this Court is not called for especially when petitioner has already been given regularization vide order dated 06.02.2014 with effect from 18.03.2011.

¶21

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed on 27.02.1988 along with several others and those several others have already been regularized in service with effect from the respective dates of their entry. That being the position, what applies to goose, shall apply to gander and therefore, the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized with retrospective effect from 27.02.1988 on the principle of parity and equality, which Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India enshrine.

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶23

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in drawing the attention of Court to the order dated 09.01.2023 passed in his earlier W.P.(C) No.36240 of 2022 wherein he was permitted to give a representation coupled with a direction to University to cause its consideration. The University is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, vide decision of Apex Court in Ujam Bai v. State of UP, AIR 1962 SC 1621 and therefore all its action are subject to discipline of Part-III of the Constitution and they are liable to examination in writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is apparent discrimination of petitioner at the hands of University Authorities and therefore, the same cannot be sustained.

¶24

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 06.02.2014 to the extent it fixes petitioner’s effective date of regularization as 18.03.2011 coupled with a direction to fix “27.02.1988” as the date of his regularization. Further, the petitioner shall be given notional benefit of retrospective regularization till 20.12.2022 and the monetary benefits only with effect from 21.12.2022. So far as the financial aspects are concerned, it hardly needs to be stated that the opposite

¶25

Page 4 of 5

¶26

party no.4 has to make appropriate budgetary allocation in this regard. Compliance within three (3) months, to be reckoned from this day.

¶27

Now, no costs.

¶28

Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶29

( Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶30

Basu

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 25-Sep-2025 18:39:13

¶33

Page 5 of 5

Prakash Reddy v. the Registrar, Utkal Universtiy, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Reddy v. the Registrar, Utkal Universtiy, Bbsr

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

Managing Committee of Saraswati Sishu Mandir, Balisahi, Puri Vs State of Odisha

Devraj Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Pankaja Kumar Mishra Vs Collector Bolangir

Rabindranath Swain Vs Collector,Kendrapara

Ashok Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Siba Prasad Rout Vs State of Odisha