Disposed

Rajkishore Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/29205/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order by the Odisha State Housing Board, the High Court permitted the petitioner to file an application for regularization of services. The petitioner must move Opposite Party No.3 within two weeks, and the Board must decide within three months, considering relevant Apex Court judgments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to move Opposite Party No.3 for regularization within two weeks; Opposite Party to decide within three months.

Rajkishore Panda Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.29205 of 2026

¶3

CNR No. ODHC010695812026

¶4

Raj Kishore Panda

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A.Behera, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶9

…. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶11

Order No.

¶12

10.09.2026

¶13

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶15

3. Considering the nature of order going to be passed, this Court is of the view that no notice need be issued to the Opposite Parties –Odisha State Housing Board.

¶16

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that even though the Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dtd.22.08.2025 so passed by Opposite Party-Board under Annexure-1, but in fact Petitioner seeks regularization of his services, as junior to the Petitioner have already been regularized in the year 1996.

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

4.1 . It is accordingly contended that Petitioner be permitted to move Opposite Party No.3 to get the benefit of regularization.

¶19

4.2 . It is further contended that Opposite Party No.3 be directed to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim taking into account the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others , 2026 INSC 99.

¶20

5 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to move Opposite Party No.3 to get the benefit of regularization.

¶21

5.1 . It is observed that if any such application will be filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.3 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

5.2 . It is further observed that while taking a decision, relevancy and effect of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal Dharam Singh & Bhola Nath , be taken into consideration. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with his representation and the citations before Opposite Party No.3 for compliance.

¶25

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Subrat

¶27

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 11-Sep-2026 13:43:38

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Rajkishore Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkishore Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases