Panchu Nayak Vs State of Odisha

1. The instant appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 2^nd December, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.27071 of 2022 as the petitioner has not been able to make out a ground for interference with the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.4 herein.

¶18

Undeniably, the petitioner was engaged as a daily rated worker i.e. Inferior Field Worker (IFW) with effect from 06.02.1996. While continuing in such capacity and having rendered continuous and uninterrupted service, the petitioner claimed for regularization of his service to the authorities. Since the authorities were showing an apathetic attitude in addressing the issues raised by the petitioner and other similarly circumstance persons, the approach was made to the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) for regularization and after

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

abolition of the said Tribunal, the records were transmitted to this Court and ultimately the authorities considered the prayer of those persons and regularized their services. It appears that from the order of regularization dated 20^th May, 2014 the service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 18.09.2013 and not from the date of his initial engagement as daily rated worker. The petitioner remained silent for a long period of time until he realized that after attaining the age of superannuation and while claiming the retiral and/or pensionary benefits, the authorities rejected the same as he does not render the qualifying period of service.

¶21

The petitioner subsequently approached this Court by filing the writ petition alleging that the authorities have proceeded on a misconception that the regularization would take effect from 18.09.2013 whereas it ought to be from the initial date of his engagement as a daily rated worker i.e. 06.02.1996. The Single Bench did not find the stand taken by the petitioner to be justified in interfering with the order of the authorities in denying the pensionary and/or retiral benefits to the petitioner and proceeded to reject the writ petition.

¶22

The appellant/petitioner has challenged the said order on the premise that once the similarly circumstanced persons have been regularized from the initial date of their engagement as a daily rated worker, there is no justification on the part of the authorities in perpetrating a discriminatory treatment to the petitioner in regularizing his service with effect from 18.09.2013. It is further submitted that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy throughout and there was no lapses and/or negligence on his part.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

We gave our conscious consideration to the above aspect and do not find any grounds warranting interference with the impugned order. The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily rated worker and subsequently, his services was regularized with effect from 18.09.2013 by an order dated 20.05.2014. The litigation which was initiated pertains to regularization of his service and we do not find any document that the said order dated 20.05.2014 was ever challenged by the petitioner on the ground of discrimination. The petitioner woke up from the slumber when the authorities refused to extend the benefits of pensionary and/or retiral and such a dormant litigant should not be permitted to resurrect the stale claim. Since the petitioner did not challenge the order of regularization and approached the Court after a gap of eight years when the pensionary and/or retiral benefits were denied to him, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶25

The appeal is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S.K. Jena/Secy.

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Mar-2026 13:35:57

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Panchu Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchu Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Mallick Vs Commissioner of Ct and Gst,Cuttack

M/S.Ratna Vegetable and Co.,Baragarh Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax(C.T.) and Goods and Services Tax(G.S.T), Cuttack

M/S Sekh Hasibul Rahman Vs the Commissioner, Cgst, Cx and Customs

Abhaya Kumar Swain Vs Superintendent of Police, Puri

Rami Digal Vs State of Odisha

Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Branch Vs Soubhagya Chandra Biswal