Purna Chandra Sahu 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

“In the above circumstances it is humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notice as to why this case shall not be allowed and this Opp.Parties shall not be directed for regularization of Adhoc period from 14.07.1982 to 09.12.1987 with other consequential benefits for enhancement of pension and arrear salary by qualifying Annexure-4 for the interest of justice.

¶19

Further may pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”

¶20

Page 1 of 3.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties in disbursing the arrear dues of the Petitioner for the ad-hoc period from 14.07.1982 to 09.12.1987 had earlier approached the authorities. Since no action was taken by the Opposite Parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was compelled to approach the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.902 of 2006. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 25.07.2006 at Annexure-3 disposed of the O.A. application with a direction to the Respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking order within four months from the date of disposal of the O.A. application.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 26.11.2019 at Annexure-4, contended before this Court that the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order. On a close scrutiny of order dated 26.11.2019 at Annexure-4, this Court also found that the Opposite Parties have rejected the claim of the Petitioner without assigning any reason and simply by saying that the prayer of the Petitioner merits no consideration. On a careful analysis of the said order, this Court is of the view that the same is not in consonance with the order passed by the learned OAT earlier. Moreover, reasons are the heart and soul of every administrative action. Since the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 at Annexure-4 is devoid of any reason, this Court is of the considered view that the same is unsustainable in law.

¶23

Further, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and that the case of the Petitioner

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

is covered by the ratio laid down in Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Odisha decided in Civil Appeal No.1396 of 1991 vide judgment dated 02.04.1991 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to reconsider the case of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶27

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court hereby quashes the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 at Annexure-4. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove within a period of eight 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.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶30

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶31

Judge

¶32

S.K. Rout

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 3. Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 23-Apr-2026 10:31:57

Purna Chandra Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purna Chandra 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamata Das Vs Usha Padhi, Principal Secretary Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Odisha

Goutam Bhuyan Vs Sarat Chandra Mallick, Asst. Registrar Co. Operative Societies, Cuttack Circle I

Budhuram Singh Vs B.Parameswaran, IAS

Sulochana Devi Vs Agnimitra Sen

Lalit Mohan Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Lalita Sahu Vs State of Odisha