Sagarjeet Prusty Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶18

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed;

¶19

And

¶20

(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to release the consolidated monthly salary of the petitioner for the period from September, 2024 to April, 2025 and to allow him to sign the Attendance Register from May 2025 onwards and he may be allowed to continue against the post of

¶21

Page 1 of 3.

¶22

Junior Clerk as similarly situated employees have been allowed to continue in the said College with same terms and conditions like that of the petitioner and they are getting their consolidated monthly salary for each and every month, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court:

¶23

(B) And any other or order /orders direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner;”

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed by the institution in question which is a fully aided College vide office order dated 05.09.2023 as a Jr. Clerk on temporary basis. He further submitted that although the Petitioner was duly selected and was appointed, he is not being allowed to discharge his duty by the Principal of the institution in question. Being aggrieved by such illegal conduct of the institution in not allowing the Petitioner to perform his duties, the Petitioner has already approached the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-cumPresident of the Governing Body, Opposite Party No.3. In his representation dated 17.10.2025, the Petitioner has prayed for not only continuance of his service but also the payment of arrear salaries as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. Such representation having been kept pending by the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the inaction of the Opposite Party No.3.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for

¶26

Page 2 of 3.

¶27

the Petitioner as well as the pleadings in the writ petition that the Petitioner has already ventilated his grievance by filing a detailed representation dated 17.10.2025 at Annexure-5 to the writ petition and which is stated to be pending for consideration before the Opposite Party No.3, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶28

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶31

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶32

Judge

¶33

S.K. Rout

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3. Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 29-Jan-2026 16:23:31

Sagarjeet Prusty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagarjeet Prusty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laba Dandasena Vs State of Orissa

Durga Prasad Seth Vs State of Orissa

Dinamani Behera Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Subasini Padhi Vs State of Odisha

Bilasa Nayak Vs Deoranjan Kumar Singh, I.A.S