Disposed¶24

State of Odisha v. Pitambar Mohanty

Orissa HC2 Feb 2026WA/2433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ appeal; intra-court appeal; delay condonation; 293 days; I.A. No.6504 of 2024; regularisation; work-charged establishment; Group-D post; regular scale of pay; denial of regularisation from appropriate date; five years of service; execution proceedings; consequential benefits; retirement 30.06.2024; order dated 16.10.2023; Single Judge; State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das; W.A. No.1598 of 2024; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Dixit Krishna Shripad; Chittaranjan Dash; Subha Bikash Panda AGA; D. Mishra; State of Odisha; Pitambar Mohanty.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 293 days condoned; the learned Single Judge's order dated 16.10.2023 affirmed; appellants directed to give it full effect and to extend all consequential benefits to the respondent within two months from communication of this judgment; all pending I.As. disposed of.

State of Odisha Vs Pitambar Mohanty — 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 should be condoned (application I.A. No.6504 of 2024). +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The court reasoned that refusal to condone the delay would oust the appellants from the Court, which a Court exercising writ appellate jurisdiction ought not to do, while condonation would not prejudice the other side since the matter would be heard on merits.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

I.A. No.6504 of 2024 is allowed and the 293-day delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned; the application is accordingly disposed of.

¶14

Key takeaways

The controversy over denial of regularisation from the appropriate date is squarely covered by this Court's judgment in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das (W.A. No.1598 of 2024); in the absence of any distinguishing feature, the present appeal stands covered by that judgment.ratio¶22
The order dated 16.10.2023 of the learned Single Judge stands affirmed; the appellants are directed to give it full effect and to extend all consequential benefits to the respondent within two months from communication of this judgment.ratio¶24
In consequence of the disposition of the appeal, all pending I.As. are disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 2433 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 02.02.2026, Dixit Krishna Shripad & Chittaranjan Dash JJ.) by the State of Odisha and another against the learned Single Judge's order dated 16.10.2023, which had set aside the rejection of Pitambar Mohanty's claim for regularisation (work-charged Group-D post, regular scale of pay) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The 293-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned (I.A. No.6504 of 2024 allowed), refusal to condone being held tantamount to ousting the appellants from the Court. Finding the controversy over denial of regularisation from the appropriate date squarely covered by this Court's judgment in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das (W.A. No.1598 of 2024) and discerning no distinguishing feature, the Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order, directed the appellants to extend all consequential benefits within two months of communication of the judgment, and disposed of all pending I.As. Meanwhile the respondent had obtained interim regularisation by order dated 13.02.2024 (not from his claimed date of completion of five years of service) and had retired on 30.06.2024 without consequential benefits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 2433 of 2024

¶3

State of Odisha and another

¶4

…. Appellants Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Pitambar Mohanty

¶7

…. Respondent Mr. D. Mishra, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No. 02.

02.02.2026

I.A. No.6504 of 2024

¶13

There is a delay of 293 days in filing the writ appeal. An application, being I.A. No.6504 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.

¶14

In the above circumstances, I.A. No.6504 of 2024 is allowed, and the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶16

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

W.A. No.2433 of 2024

¶19

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.

¶20

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 and repeated representations, his claim for regularisation was rejected, giving rise to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge quashed the rejection order and directed reconsideration of his case in accordance with law.

¶21

As the appellants did not act upon the said order, the respondent initiated execution proceedings. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellants issued an order dated 13.02.2024 regularising his services; however, such regularisation was not granted from the date of completion of five years of service as claimed. The respondent has since retired on 30.06.2024 without having been extended consequential benefits.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the respondent rendered long and uninterrupted service and that the controversy centres on denial of regularisation from the appropriate date. 5. 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.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

The appellants are directed to give full effect to the order dated 16.10.2023, as affirmed herein, and to extend all consequential benefits to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment.

¶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. Pitambar Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Pitambar Mohanty

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 Kishore Chandra Bhuyan