Saroj Kumar Gartia Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No.4810 of 2025

1) Saroj Kumar Gartia ..... Petitioners 2) Gandhi Biswal Represented By Adv. - 3) Seshadev Suna Dilip Kumar Sahu 4) Panchanan Patel 5) Sanak Majhi 6) Babulal Dash 7) Pradeep Dang

¶4

-versus-

¶5

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director Of Ayush, Bbsr Represented By Adv. – 3) District Ayurvedic Medical Mr.M.R.Patra, ASC Officer, Balangir

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

17.02.2025

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the StateOpposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶13

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶14

Page 1 of 4.

¶15

“It is therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to file show cause as to why the they shall not be directed to consider the case of petitioners for regularization along with grant all consequential service and financial benefits to the Petitioners as admissible to the posts held by them with effect from 2012 as per Judgement dated 27.02.2023 in the matter of Bijay Kumar Behera and others-versus State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.38547 of 2020 within a stipulated time.

¶16

In the event of the Opposite Parties fail to file show-cause or show insufficient cause, then the said rule may be made absolute and issues a Writ in the nature of mandamus' /certiorari or any other appropriate

¶17

And further be pleased to pass any order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper and for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶18

In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners ventilating their grievance has submitted representation before the Director of Ayush, Odisha, Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the said representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the

¶19

Page 2 of 4.

¶20

representation of the Petitioners under Annexure-6 within a stipulated period of time.

¶21

Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioners is considered by the Opposite Party No.2, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶22

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioners, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioners under Annexure-6, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , 2006(4) SCC 1 as well as in State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Keshari and others , 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982 , in Jaggo v . Union of India and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, in Sripal and another V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31^st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024) and in Bijay Kumar Behera and others v. State of Odisha and others, (decided on 27.02.2023) in W.P.(C) No.38547 of 2020 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioners under Annexure-6 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by