Siba Sindriya Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶17

By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has made the following relief:

¶18

“On the facts and in the circumstances above, your petitioners, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to;

¶19

i) modify / quash the impugned letter No.1403 dt.21.06.2024 of the OP No.2 under Annexure-8 by holding the same as bad, illegal and contrary to law; and thereby

¶20

ii) direct the OPs to antedate the date of regularization of the petitioner w.e.f 06.08.2002 instead of 28.05.2024 with grant of all consequential service and monetary benefits in terms of the direction of this Hon'ble Court dt.27.07.2023 passed

¶21

Page 1 of 3.

¶22

in WP(C) No.20005/2022;

¶23

iii) pass such other order(s) as would be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice And for which act of your kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20005 of 2022 which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2023 directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of Petitioner in the light of the order dated 15.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.19402 of 2022. On perusal of order dated 15.05.2023 passed in the case of Karmu Majhi vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.19402 of 2022, this Court observed that the learned coordinate Bench while disposing of a similar writ application directed the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his service in terms of the judgments referred to in the aforesaid order.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although the service of the Petitioner has been regularized however, the same with perspective effect as per the order at Annexure-8 dated 21.06.2024. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that the Petitioner should have been regularize with effect from the date on which he completed 10 years of service, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi , reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 and other similar judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶26

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that although he has no specific instruction in the matter

¶27

Page 2 of 3.

¶28

however, on perusal of the writ application it appears that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is premature. He further contended that in the event this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid limited nature of grievance of the petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ petition granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.2 ventilating his grievance within a period of two weeks. If such representation is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of two months from the date of filing representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of taking such a decision.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal AssistantSisir Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 13-Mar-2026 18:49:58

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶35

Page 3 of 3.

Siba Sindriya v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siba Sindriya 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

Jayashree Kumari Devi Vs Puspa Kumari Devi

Mohan Kumar Durit Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bira Kishore Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Chitrasen Samantaray Vs Nilamani Paikray

Akshaya Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha