Dismissed¶27

State of Odisha v. Sahadeba Rout

Orissa HC2 Feb 2026WA/853/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Work-charged establishment employees; regularisation and consequential service benefits; five years continuous service; O.A. No. 2347 of 2001 before Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench; transfer to High Court on Tribunal abolition; W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 2347 of 2001; delay condonation of 498 days; I.A. No.2183 of 2023; Kasidev Maharana vs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 7246 of 2016; State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das, W.A. No.1598 of 2024 followed; writ appeal dismissed; compliance within two months.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 498 days in filing the writ appeal condoned (I.A. No.2183 of 2023 allowed); appellants directed to extend to the respondents the benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge within two months from communication of the judgment; all pending I.As. disposed of. ¶27

State of Odisha Vs Sahadeba Rout — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents, engaged under the work-charged establishment and having rendered continuous service for several years, are entitled to regularisation and consequential service benefits after completion of the prescribed period of continuous engagement. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The respondents' entitlement to regularisation and consequential service benefits is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das, W.A. No.1598 of 2024.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 498 days in filing the writ appeal is condoned and I.A. No.2183 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.

¶14

Key takeaways

In the absence of any distinguishing feature, the present appeal stands covered by the Basanti Das judgment, answering the appellants' plea that the respondents stand on a different footing.ratio¶25
The appellants shall extend to the respondents the benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge within a period of two months from the date of communication of the judgment.ratio¶26
The Writ Appeal is dismissed and, in consequence, all pending I.As. are disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 853 of 2023) by the State of Odisha against the Single Judge judgment dated 16.11.2021 in W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 2347 of 2001, which had directed extension to work-charged employees (appointed between 1962 and 2000, seeking regularisation) of the benefits granted in Kasidev Maharana vs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 7246 of 2016. The Division Bench (Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.) allowed I.A. No.2183 of 2023 condoning a delay of 498 days in filing the appeal, held that the entitlement issue was squarely covered by State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Basanti Das, W.A. No.1598 of 2024, found no distinguishing feature, directed the appellants to extend the benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge within two months from communication of the judgment, and dismissed the writ appeal, disposing of all pending I.As.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 853 of 2023

¶3

State of Odisha and another

¶4

…. Appellants

¶5

Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Sahadeba Rout and Others

¶8

…. Respondents Mr. B. Barik, Advocate

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶10

Order No. 06.

¶11

ORDER 02.02.2026

¶12

I.A. No.2183 of 2023

¶13

There is a delay of 498 days in filing the writ appeal. An application, being I.A. No.2183 of 2023, 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.2183 of 2023 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.853 of 2023

¶19

This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 2347 of 2001, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition and directed the appellants to extend to the respondents the benefits as had been granted in Kasidev Maharana vs. State of Odisha , W.P.(C) No. 7246 of 2016 .

¶20

The respondents were appointed under the work-charged establishment under different Divisions of the State Government between the years 1962 and 2000 for execution of office/project works. Some of them were retrenched on account of surplus staff and subsequently re-engaged under different Divisions. Having rendered continuous service for several years, they approached the State authorities in 2001 seeking regularization of their services. As no decision was taken, they filed O.A. No. 2347 of 2001 before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, praying for regularization upon completion of five years of continuous service. Upon abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.(C) (OAC) No. 2347 of 2001.

¶21

The grievance of the appellants in the present appeal is that such direction was issued without affording opportunity to file counter affidavit and that the respondents stand on a different footing.

¶22

It is not disputed that the respondents had been engaged under the work-charged establishment and had rendered long years of

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

service under different Divisions of the State. The core issue pertains to their entitlement to regularisation and consequential service benefits after completion of the prescribed period of continuous engagement.

¶25

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.

¶26

The appellants shall accordingly extend to the respondents the benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment.

¶27

The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. In consequence, all the pending I.As. are also disposed of.

¶28

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

¶29

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶30

( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge

¶31

AKPradhan

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

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

¶34

Page 3 of 3

State of Odisha v. Sahadeba Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Sahadeba 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 Minaketan Mallick

State of Odisha Vs Kishore Chandra Bhuyan

State of Odisha Vs Pitambar Mohanty