Allowed¶18

Tunibala Pati v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Sept 2025WP(C)/865/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retrospective regularization; regularization from date of initial entry 31.05.1988; parity with similarly circumstanced employees; University counter paragraph-7; writ of mandamus; consequential benefits; three-month compliance; 1% per mensem interest on delay; OJC No.13005 of 1999 Parikshit Mallik v. Chancellor Utkal University; W.P.(C) No.1720 of 2002 Coordinate Bench order Annexure-2; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Dixit Krishna Shripad, J; petitioner Smt. Tunibala Pati; State of Odisha; writ petition allowed; order dated 04.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; mandamus to the University to give retrospective regularization from 31.05.1988 (date of initial entry) with all consequential benefits within three (3) months, failing which interest at 1% per mensem on the amount payable. ¶18

Tunibala Pati Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose case is substantially similar to that of other University employees who were regularized retrospectively from their dates of initial entry into service, is entitled to retrospective regularization from her own date of initial entry (31.05.1988) with all consequential benefits.

¶14

Court's answer

A Writ of Mandamus issues to the University to grant the petitioner retrospective regularization with effect from her date of initial entry, i.e., 31.05.1988, together with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, to be given within a period of three (3) months.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

If the University delays compliance, it shall pay interest at the rate of 1% per mensem on the amount payable on the benefit granted to the petitioner.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack — W.P.(C) No.865 of 2024, order dated 04.09.2025, coram Dixit Krishna Shripad, J. The petitioner's case was found substantially similar to that of University employees (the University is not named in the order) who had been regularized retrospectively from their dates of initial entry into service, as recorded in paragraph-7 of the University's counter. Relying on OJC No.13005 of 1999, Parikshit Mallik v. Chancellor, Utkal University (disposed 27.01.2006), and Annexure-2, a Coordinate Bench order in her own earlier W.P.(C) No.1720 of 2002 (disposed 15.07.2010), counsel for the petitioner claimed identical relief; learned counsel appearing for the University did not dispute the submission. Holding that 'much adjudication is not warranted in the matter', the Court allowed the writ petition and issued a Writ of Mandamus directing retrospective regularization of the petitioner with effect from her date of initial entry, i.e., 31.05.1988, with all consequential benefits within three (3) months; on any delay, the University was directed to pay interest at 1% per mensem on the amount payable.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.865 of 2024

¶3

Smt. Tunibala Pati

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mrs. S. Jena, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and another

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. J.K. Ray, ASC Mr. B.K. Dash, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

Order No.

ORDER 04.09.2025

12.

The subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to one in OJC No.13005 of 1999 between Parikshit Mallik v. Chancellor, Utkal University disposed off on 27.01.2006, wherein the order of regularization has been granted to employees similarly circumstanced with retrospective effect from their date of initially entry into service and therefore, the same relief needs to be granted to her client, argues learned counsel for the petitioner. She also draws attention of the Court to Annexure2, which is an order of Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1720 of 2002 that was filed by the petitioner herein and disposed off on 15.07.2010, in support of her contention.

¶15

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the University, in an appreciable fairness, does not dispute the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In fact, he draws attention of the Court to paragraph-7 of the counter of the university, wherein the regularization has been

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

granted to other similarly circumstanced employees of the University with retrospective effect, i.e., from the date of their initial entry into service. In view of all this, much adjudication is not warranted in the matter.

¶18

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the University to give retrospective regularization to the petitioner with effect from the date of her initial entry, i.e., 31.05.1988 and to grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom within a period of three (3) months. If delay is brooked, the University shall pay interest at the rate of 1% per mensem on the amount payable on the mandatory benefit payable to the petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶21

Anisha

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2025 18:19:39

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Tunibala Pati v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tunibala Pati 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

Bhabani Pr. Mishra Vs B.D.a.,Bbsr

Satyanarayan Hota Vs State of Odisha

Pramoda Kumar Singh Vs State of Odisha

Kumarmani Nayak Vs State

Samanwita Rout Vs State of Odisha

Taramani Surin Vs State of Odisha