Khetrabasi Garnayak Vs State of Odisha

i). direct the opp. parties to regularise him in service taking into consideration the initial appointment 01.04.1990 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;

¶15

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

¶16

4. It is contended that even though Petitioner was initially engaged as a DLR and subsequently brought

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

over to the work charged establishment and while working as such in the said establishment, his claim for regularization was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16779 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).

¶19

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.16779 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

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

Khageswar Jena so affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Balakrishna as cited (supra).

¶23

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

¶24

6. 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).

¶25

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.

¶26

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶27

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶28

Signature Not VerifiedBasudev

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 16-Mar-2026 11:32:24

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Khetrabasi Garnayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khetrabasi Garnayak 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaram Samal Vs State of Odisha

Pandaba Charan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Kanchanbala Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Pawan Kumar Soni Vs Canara Bank, Bangalore

Bijay Kumar Das Vs Nibedita Pani, D.E.O., Jajpur

Dasarathi Das Vs Odisha Grameen Bank, Gandamunda, Bbsr