Dr. Nilamadhab Sahu Vs State of Odisha

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

¶21

By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶22

“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to:i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the records.

¶23

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs by quashing the impugned Govt. order No.2537/HE dated 16.01.2026 issued by the Opp. Party No.l under Annexure-9 and to declare the same illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law governing the

¶24

Page 1 of 4.

¶25

field.

¶26

iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/writs, by directing the StateOpposite parties, to extend the benefit of placement in the Lecturer (Group-A) Scale of pay as well as Reader (State Scale) scale of pay in favour of the petitioner w.e.f 16.09.2009 and 16.09.2019 respectively, in terms of the provision provided under the Odisha Non-Government Aided College Lecturer's Placement Rules, 2014 r/w the clarificatory Govt. letter dated 20.01.2016 issued under Annexure-5 and 6 respectively, keeping in view the ratio decided by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Lokanath Behera Vs. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.2062 of 2024 disposed of on 13.08.2025), and further the petitioner may be extended with all other consequential service and financial benefits along with differential arrears as due and admissible, within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble court.

¶27

v) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.29638 of 2025, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 thereby directing the Opposite Parties to consider the representation of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2062 of 2024 ( Lokanath Behera v. State of Odisha ), which was disposed of vide order dated 13.08.2025. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the

¶29

Page 2 of 4.

¶30

Opposite Party No.1-Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Higher Education Department, Loka Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar at Annexure-9.

¶31

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the representation of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the State-Opposite Parties have preferred a writ appeal bearing W.A. No.1606 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. On a careful analysis of the impugned order, it appears that the Opposite Party No.1 has not complied with the order passed by this Court and the case of the Petitioner has not been considered in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Lokanath Behera’s case (supra). The representation of the Petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that the writ appeal is pending.

¶32

This Court is of the view that the conduct of the Opposite Party No.1 is prima facie contemptuous. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the State, this Court is inclined to grant another opportunity to the Opposite Party No.1 to comply with the direction issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025, in W.P.(C) No.29638 of 2025, at Annexure-8.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of by setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 16.01.2026 at Annexure-9 and further directed the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner in terms of order dated 29.10.2025 passed a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.29638 of 2025 within a further period of eight

¶34

Page 3 of 4.

¶35

weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The representation of the Petitioner shall be considered and disposed of in the light of the judgment in Lokanath Behera’s case (supra) by passing a speaking and reasoned order. However, it is further made clear that any decision that is likely to be taken by the Opposite Party No.1 on the representation of the Petitioner, shall be subject to the outcome of the pending writ appeal.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶38

Debasis

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 23-Mar-2026 12:08:28

¶41

Page 4 of 4.

Dr. Nilamadhab Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Nilamadhab Sahu 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

Pratap Chandra Behera Vs Pawan Kumar Sultania

Sanjaya Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha

Md. Azimuz Zaman Vs Md. Abdus Samad

Durga Charan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

P. Chandraya Vs State of Odisha

Arati Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha