Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Kabitarani Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions were filed for regularization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background regarding engagement and regularization of the petitioner. (Para 4) |
| 3. opposition arguments regarding the regularization process and vacancies. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's reasoning regarding regularization and vacancies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. final directives regarding regularization and benefits. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are interrelated, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of with the present common order.
3. While Writ Petition No.11588 of 2022 has been filed inter alia with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to revive the order of regularization of the Petitioner so issued on 07.09.2001 under Annexure-6 in accordance with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.340 of 1994, with quashing of the orders issued under Annexures-9, 18, 19 and 21 and sanction of consequential benefits, W.P.(C) No.11592 of 2022 has been filed with similar prayer but with anothe
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 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....
Long-term adhoc employees have a right to regularization and benefits, as arbitrary continuation of their engagement undermines fairness and violates constitutional principles of employment.
The court ruled that the termination of ad hoc teachers' services based on the Government Order was unjust and mandated fresh consideration of their regularization claims under the relevant statutory....
The court held that employees regularized despite not formally joining are still entitled to pensionary benefits, emphasizing fairness in public employment rights.
The court affirmed that employees continuing post-2016 have a right to regularization, and termination orders must be based on valid grounds.
Employees serving over ten years without unlawful intervention are entitled to pension benefits, even if prior appointments were irregular. Bureaucratic failure to regularize should not impede legal ....
The failure to implement earlier directions gave rise to a fresh cause of action, and discrimination in the regularization process is not justified.
The cancellation of an employee's regularization based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of non-discrimination and due process, necessitating restoration of benefits to similarly situated indi....
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
