Disposed¶25

Principal Secy, Water Resources Deptt., Odisha v. Saroj Kumar Rout

Orissa HC2 Feb 2026WA/274/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation (69 days) — parity principle: similar cases decided similarly — disposal of writ appeal mutatis mutandis in terms of co-ordinate Bench order dated 25.08.2025 in W.A. No.226 of 2024, State of Odisha & Anr. v. Phanindra Kumar Mishra — regularization and pensionary benefits for similarly situated employees — Narasu Pradhan (supra) — direction in W.P.(C) No. 9296 of 2022 with four-month compliance period — Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Odisha v. Saroj Kumar Rout — captions W.A. No.274 of 2024 / W.A. No.160 of 2024 — Orissa High Court, order dated 02.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of the order in the cognate case (W.A. No.226 of 2024, order dated 25.08.2025) mutatis mutandis; delay of 69 days in filing condoned. ¶25

Principal Secy, Water Resources Deptt., Odisha Vs Saroj Kumar Rout — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.274 of 2024

¶2

…. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Appellants Department, Odisha & Others

Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA

-versus-

Saroj Kumar Rout

…. Respondent Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No. 02.

02.02.2026

I.A. No.764 of 2024

¶12

An appeal is filed after brooking a delay of 69 days and the delay is to be condoned in terms of application in I.A. No.764 of 2024 supported by affidavit.

¶13

The subject application is allowed and delay condoned.

¶14

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶15

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶16

W.A. No.160 of 2024

¶17

The subject matter of this appeal is substantially similar to the one in W.A. No.226 of 2024 between State of Odisha & Anr. v. Phanindra Kumar Mishra heard and disposed off by a Co-ordinate

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.08.2025. Paragraphs-7, 8 &

¶20

9 of the said order are texted, as under;

¶21

“7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Appeal merits no consideration as similarly situated employees have already been extended with benefit of regularization in service and release of pensionary benefit in their favour. No material contrary to such direction/action of the State Government has been placed before us to take a different view.

¶22

8. Accordingly, taking into consideration of the fact that the direction in the case of Narasu Pradhan (supra) has already been implemented and the Respondent stands on a similar footing, the Respondent herein deserves the same treatment.

¶23

9. Since the Respondent is fighting out litigations since 2022 for his regularization, notional benefits as well as pensionary benefit, in terms of the direction in W.P.(C) No. 9296 of 2022 is expected to be extended to the Respondent within a period of four months hence.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that similar cases should be decided similarly and therefore the terms coined in cognate case need to be incorporated in this order as well. We agree.

¶25

In the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed off in terms of the order in the cognate case above mutatis mutandis.

¶26

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

¶27

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶28

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Madhusmita Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2026 17:29:26

¶31

Page 2 of 2

Principal Secy, Water Resources Deptt., Odisha v. Saroj Kumar Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Secy, Water Resources Deptt., Odisha v. Saroj Kumar Rout

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