Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Pruthviraj Parida – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the petitioner's employment and claims (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. state's defense regarding claim rejection (Para 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of similar cases and entitlement (Para 7) |
ORDER :
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Mr. P.K. Chand, learned counsel filed his vakalatnama in support of his appearance in Court. The same be kept on record.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.02.03.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation from his initial date of engagement was rejected.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was initially appointed as a Jr. Clerk vide order dt.29.12.1986 on 89 days basis. Subsequently vide order dt.26.03.1987, Petitioner was so appointed with the condition that Petitioner will continue till the post is filled up by passed out candidates sponsored by the Collector of the District. However, while so continuing, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide o
The right to regularisation from the initial date of appointment is upheld when similarly situated employees are granted such benefits, confirming the principles of equality and non-discrimination in....
Employee claims for pension must be considered in light of prior judicial rulings on regularization, asserting rights after prolonged service without due process.
Court determination that non-regularization of the petitioner was erroneous as vacancy for ST category remained unfilled during 2004-2008, thus justifying retrospective regularization.
The failure to implement earlier directions gave rise to a fresh cause of action, and discrimination in the regularization process is not justified.
An employee's continuous service is recognized once a termination is set aside, impacting their eligibility for regularization despite initial appointment irregularities.
The court affirmed that employees continuing post-2016 have a right to regularization, and termination orders must be based on valid grounds.
All similarly situated employees are entitled to identical promotion benefits unless exceptions like delay or acquiescence apply, emphasizing the need for equal treatment under service law.
The denial of regularization to similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, justifying judicial intervention to restore equitable treatment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
