Disposed¶23

Kulamani Dehury v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Mar 2026WP(C)/2621/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kulamani Dehury v. State of Odisha & Ors., WP(C) No. 2621 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, 07.03.2026 (Biraja Prasanna Satpathy, J.). Regularization claim of a DLR-turned-work-charged employee; Annexure-9 rejection order dated 06.11.2025 quashed; fresh application permitted in light of Khageswar Jena (W.P.(C) No. 29993 of 2022) as affirmed by the Apex Court in G. Balakrishna (SLP(C) Diary No. 33400 of 2023); three weeks to apply, three months for the authority to decide; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure-9); liberty to make a fresh application for regularization to be considered in light of Khageswar Jena as affirmed in G. Balakrishna; if the application is filed within three weeks, the opposite party to take a lawful decision within a further three months of receipt.

Kulamani Dehury Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure-9) rejecting the petitioner's regularization claim should be quashed and the petitioner permitted to make a fresh application for regularization in light of the decision in Khageswar Jena as affirmed by the Apex Court in G. Balakrishna.

¶23

Court's answer

The order under Annexure-9 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application for consideration of his regularization claim in light of the decision in Khageswar Jena, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in G. Balakrishna.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If the fresh application is moved before the authority concerned within three weeks, the opposite party shall take a lawful decision on it within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of such application.

¶24

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, WP(C) No. 2621 of 2026 (order dated 07.03.2026, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satpathy): The order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure-9) rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization is quashed. The petitioner, initially engaged as a DLR and subsequently brought over to the work charged establishment, is permitted to make a fresh application for regularization in light of the decision of this Court in Khageswar Jena (W.P.(C) No. 29993 of 2022), affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Odisha vs. G. Balakrishna (SLP(C) Diary No. 33400 of 2023, disposed of on 24.07.2025). If the fresh application is moved within three weeks, the opposite party is to take a lawful decision within a further three months from receipt. The Additional Standing Counsel raised no serious objection. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 2621 of 2026

¶2

Kulamani Dehury

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. S.C. Sahoo, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

07.03.2026

¶10

Order No. 01

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard Mr. S.C. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶14

“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶15

i), direct the opp. parties to regularise him in service taking into consideration the initial appointment 01.01.1990 and completed service of 35 years rendered by the petitioner as per Finance deptt. Resolution dt. 15.05.1997 and in terms of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court and thereby quash the order dated 06.11.2025 under Annexure-9;

¶16

ii). Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would be deem fit and proper in the bonafide interest of Justice;

¶17

And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

It is contended that even though Petitioner was initially engaged as a DLR and subsequently brought over to the work charged establishment and while working as such in the said establishment, his claim for regularization was not considered and he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 17210 of 2025 claiming the benefit of regularization in his favour. While filing such a case, a wrong submission was made before this Court that Petitioner’s claim is covered by the decision in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Narusu Pradhan so passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1189(C) of 2006 and so also in the case of Sarbeswar Bhujabal Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., (O.A. No. 606 of 2015).

¶20

4.1. It is contended that in fact Petitioner’s claim is now covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Khageswar Jena Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 29993 of 2022) so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a batch of appeals, the leading case being State of Odisha & Ors. vs. G. Balakrishna, SLP(C) Diary No. 33400 of 2023 disposed of on 24.07.2025. It is accordingly contended that since because of the wrong committed by the Petitioner’s counsel while filing W.P.(C) No. 16793 of 2025, Petitioner’s claim for regularization has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.06.11.2025 under Annexure-9, Petitioner be given liberty to make a fresh application for consideration of his claim for regularization in the light of the decision in the case of Khageswar Jena so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Balakrishna as cited (supra).

¶21

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶22

Page 2 of 3.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and while quashing order under Annexure-9, this Court permits the Petitioner to make a fresh application for consideration of his claim in the light of the decision in the case of Khageswar Jena so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Balakrishna as cited (supra).

¶24

6.1. It is observed that if any such application is moved before the authority concerned within a period of three (3) weeks hence, the said Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application.

¶25

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶26

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶27

Jyoti

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:49:04

¶30

Page 3 of 3.

Kulamani Dehury v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulamani Dehury 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jibanballabha Vs Prafulla

Suryakant Routaray Vs Pnb, New Delhi

Manas Ranjan Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Sharat Chandra Behera Vs Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela

Kailash Chandra Panda Vs State of Odisha

Dambarudhar Behera Vs State of Odisha