Dismissed¶24

State of Odisha v. Kishore Chandra Bhuyan

Orissa HC2 Feb 2026WA/2430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed; 293-day filing delay condoned (I.A. No.6488 of 2024); regularisation of work-charged Group-D employee against regular scale of pay; prolonged temporariness and denial of regularisation on ground of initial irregularity; relies on W.A. No.1222 of 2025 and State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das, W.A. No.1598 of 2024; Single Judge order dated 16.10.2023 affirmed; consequential benefits within two months; execution proceedings preceded appeal; interim regularisation order dated 13.02.2024.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing condoned; order dated 16.10.2023 affirmed and to be given full effect by the appellants; all consequential benefits, if any due, to be granted within two months from communication of this judgment; writ appeal dismissed; all pending I.As. disposed of. ¶24

State of Odisha Vs Kishore Chandra Bhuyan — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 293 days in filing the writ appeal ought to be condoned. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

The delay of 293 days in filing the writ appeal having been plausibly explained and its condonation causing no prejudice, I.A. No.6488 of 2024 is allowed, the delay is condoned, and the I.A. is disposed of.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

It is not in dispute that the respondent has been continuing in service and that his regularisation claim is founded upon long and uninterrupted service against a Group-D post carrying a regular scale of pay.

¶21

Key takeaways

The issue whether the State can perpetuate a condition of prolonged temporariness and thereafter deny regularisation solely on the ground of initial irregularity stands settled by this Court in W.A. No.1222 of 2025, wherein it has been held that the State cannot be permitted to do so.ratio¶21
In the absence of any distinguishing feature, the present appeal stands covered by this Court's decision in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das, ordered in W.A. No.1598 of 2024.ratio¶23
The order dated 16.10.2023 calls for no interference and is affirmed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.A. No. 2430 of 2024 (coram: Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.), order dated 02.02.2026. Intra-court writ appeal by the State of Odisha (delay of 293 days condoned via I.A. No.6488 of 2024) against the learned Single Judge's order dated 16.10.2023, which had set aside the rejection of a work-charged Group-D employee's claim for regularisation and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. During pendency the State regularised the respondent's services (order dated 13.02.2024) but not from the date of completion of five years' service as claimed. Holding the respondent's claim — founded on long and uninterrupted service against a Group-D post carrying a regular scale of pay — to be covered by this Court's decisions in W.A. No.1222 of 2025 (State cannot perpetuate prolonged temporariness and thereafter deny regularisation solely on the ground of initial irregularity) and State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das (W.A. No.1598 of 2024), and finding no distinguishing feature, the Court affirmed the order dated 16.10.2023, directed the appellants to give it full effect and grant consequential benefits, if any due, within two months, and dismissed the writ appeal; pending I.As. disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 2430 of 2024

¶3

State of Odisha and another

¶4

…. Appellants Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Kishore Chandra Bhuyan and Others …. Respondents Mr. D. Mishra, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No. 02.

02.02.2026

I.A. No.6488 of 2024

¶12

There is a delay of 293 days in filing the writ appeal. An application, being I.A. No.6488 of 2024, supported by an affidavit, accompanies the memorandum of appeal, wherein the delay has been plausibly explained. Condonation of the delay would not prejudice the case of the other side, inasmuch as the matter would be heard on merits, however, refusal to condone the delay would result in ousting the Appellants from the Court, which a Court exercising writ appellate jurisdiction ought not to do.

¶13

In the above circumstances, I.A. No.6488 of 2024 is allowed, and the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

¶14

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶15

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

W.A. No.2430 of 2024

¶18

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.10.2023, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the rejection of the respondent’s claim for regularisation and remanded the matter to the authorities for fresh consideration.

¶19

The respondent had been brought over to the work-charged establishment against a Group-D post carrying a regular scale of pay. Despite long and continuous service, his representation for regularisation was rejected, leading to a series of litigations. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the matter, set aside the rejection order and directed reconsideration of his claim in accordance with law.

¶20

As the appellants did not act upon the said order, the respondent initiated execution proceedings. During pendency of the present appeal, the appellants issued an order dated 13.02.2024 regularising the services of the respondent; however, such regularisation was not granted from the date of completion of five years of service as claimed by him.

¶21

It is not in dispute that the respondent has been continuing in service and that his claim is founded upon long and uninterrupted service against a Group-D post carrying regular scale of pay. The issue as to whether the State can perpetuate a condition of prolonged temporariness and thereafter deny regularisation solely on the ground of initial irregularity stands settled by this Court in W.A. No.1222 of 2025, wherein it has been held that the State cannot be permitted to do so.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das , ordered in W.A. No.1598 of 2024 . In the absence of any distinguishing feature, the present appeal stands covered by the aforesaid judgment.

¶24

The order dated 16.10.2023 calls for no interference. The appellants are directed to give full effect to the order dated 16.10.2023, as affirmed herein, and to grant all consequential benefits, if any due, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

In consequence, all the pending I.As. are also disposed of.

¶26

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

¶27

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶28

( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge

¶29

AKPradhan

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Feb-2026 11:35:03

¶32

Page 3 of 3

State of Odisha v. Kishore Chandra Bhuyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Kishore Chandra Bhuyan

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

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union Bank of India, Sambalpur

Shyamlal Gupta Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd., Mumbai

Minati Sahoo Vs Recovery Officer, Court of the Recovery Office, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack

State of Odisha Vs Sahadeba Rout

State of Odisha Vs Minaketan Mallick

State of Odisha Vs Pitambar Mohanty