Dismissed¶23

State of Odisha v. Shyama Dunguria

Orissa HC28 Jan 2026WA/177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC writ appeal dismissed on parity; delay of 377 days condoned; regularization of long-serving (26 years) retired employee per Umadevi; State of Odisha v. Shyama Dunguria; challenges Single Judge order 05.12.2023 in W.P.(C) 38793/2023; information sought vide letter No.10275 dated 23.06.2023; Chief Civil Supplies Officer, Subarnapur; comparable appeals W.A. 2602/2024 (Mangaraj, disposed 24.06.2025) and W.A. 2601/2024 (Sunita Kumari Apat, dismissed 16.07.2025); implementation warning — delay/default tantamount to contempt.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants: appeal rejected; the learned Single Judge's order directed to be implemented reckoned from the day of this order, delay or default to be viewed very seriously as amounting to contempt; web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. ¶23

State of Odisha Vs Shyama Dunguria — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 377 days in preferring W.A. No. 177 of 2025 by the State should be condoned (I.A. No. 450 of 2025). +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

Delay of 377 days in filing the appeal is condoned; the condonation application I.A. No. 450 of 2025 is allowed.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is rejected as unworthy of merits; the learned Single Judge's order dated 05.12.2023 stands and is to be implemented reckoned from the date of this order, with delay or default to be viewed very seriously as amounting to contempt.

¶23

Key takeaways

Similar cases should be treated similarly in the absence of any derogatory circumstances; the appeal is accordingly dealt with on the principle of parity with Writ Appeal No.2602 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No.2601 of 2024.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Division Bench (Dixit Krishna Shripad & Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.), Order dated 28.01.2026 in W.A. No. 177 of 2025 (State of Odisha & another v. Shyama Dunguria & another): The State's writ appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated 05.12.2023 in the respondents' W.P.(C) No.38793 of 2023 — which had disposed of the writ at the admission stage by directing the Chief Civil Supplies Officer, Subarnapur to furnish information sought vide letter No.10275 dated 23.06.2023 within four weeks, and Opposite Party No.1 to take a final decision within six weeks thereon, bearing in mind the petitioner's 26 years of continuous service and retirement, with regularization per the Umadevi judgment carrying disbursal of financial benefits within two months — was entertained after condonation of a 377-day delay (I.A. No.450 of 2025 allowed on the respondents' own fair submission). Relying on the orders of a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Appeal No.2602 of 2024 (State of Odisha v. Santosh Kumar Mangaraj, disposed 24.06.2025) and of this Bench in Writ Appeal No.2601 of 2024 (State of Odisha v. Sunita Kumari Apat, dismissed 16.07.2025), and on the rule that similar cases should be treated similarly absent derogatory circumstances, the Bench rejected the appeal as unworthy of merits and directed that the Single Judge's order be implemented reckoned from that day, delay or default to be viewed very seriously as amounting to contempt.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 177 of 2025

¶3

State of Odisha and another

¶4

Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, Additional Government Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Shyama Dunguria & another … Respondents

¶7

Mr. G. Sethi, Advocate (for Respondent No.1)

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Order No.

ORDER 28.01.2026

I.A. No.450 of 2025 &

¶13

W.A No. 177 of 2025

¶14

This Appeal by the State and its official calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 05.12.2023 entered in Respondents’ W.P.(C) No.38793 of 2023, whereby the following relief has been accorded to them:

¶15

“7. Considering such submission made by learned counsels appearing for respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, as well as materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.4 i.e. Chief Civil Supplies Officer, Subarnapur to provide the information as sought for by the Government vide letter No.10275 dated 23.06.2023 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. On receipt of such communication from the Opposite Party NO.4, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to take a final decision pursuant to the order passed by the coordinate bench in the earlier writ

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

application within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving a copy of such information from Opposite Party No.4. Needless to mention here that the while considering the case of the petitioner the Opposite Party No.1 shall keep in mind the fact that the petitioner had worked continuously for 26 years at the present employer and in the meantime, he has retired from the service. Therefore in the event the Opposite Parties decide to regularize the service in terms of the judgment in Umadevi’s case Supra the petitioner service shall be regularized and in such case all his financial benefits will be disbursed within a period of two months from the date of taking such a decision. Any decision taken by the authorities be intimated to the petitioner from time to time.”

¶18

2. Appeal is preferred after brooking delay of 377 days and an application supported by an affidavit in I.A. No.450 of 2025 accompanies the Appeal Memo seeking its condonation. Application mentions about certain circumstances which may arguably constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

¶19

3. Learned counsel representing the Respondentemployees very fairly submits that the application be allowed and delay be condoned. In view of that, application having been favoured, delay is condoned.

¶20

4 . Mr. Behura, learned AGA appearing for the Appellants vehemently argues that the impugned order is fraught with many illegalities and infirmities and therefore, matter merits examination at the hands of this Court.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the Respondents opposes the Appeal contending that the subject matter of this Appeal is substantially similar to the one in Writ Appeal No.2602 of 2024 between State of Odisha & another Vs. Santosh Kumar Mangaraj & another disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.06.2025 and therefore, what happened to that Appeal should happen to this Appeal on the principle of parity. He also places at our hand the orders of this Bench in Writ Appeal No.2601 of 2024 between State of Odisha & another Vs. Sunita Kumari Apat & others dismissed on 16.07.2025. Similar cases should be treated similarly is the rule of adjudication, in the absence of any derogatory circumstances.

¶23

In the above circumstances, the appeal being unworthy of merits is liable to be and accordingly rejected. The order of the learned Single Judge shall be implemented reckoned from this day and delay or default shall be viewed very seriously as amounting to contempt.

¶24

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

¶25

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶26

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally SignedSigned by: SARBANI DASHDesignation: Junior StenographerReason: AuthenticationLocation: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 29-Jan-2026 10:48:19 Bijay/ Sarbani

¶29

Page 3 of 3

State of Odisha v. Shyama Dunguria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Shyama Dunguria

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

K Kaushik Subudhi Vs Bank of India, Cuttack

Dibakar Sahu Vs Krushna Priya Biswal

Smrutiranjan Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Mahesh Kumar Swain Vs Union Bank of India, Bhubaneswar

Goutam Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Shiwangi Mahato Vs State of Odisha