Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Himanshu Shekhar Parhi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
1. The Petitioner No.1, who was working as a Junior Clerk on being appointed on 12.07.1991 and subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 13.01.1992, the Petitioner No.2, who was working as a Junior Clerk on being appointed on 12.01.1992 and Petitioner No.3, who was working as a Peon, have approached this Court by filing a present writ application with a prayer for a issuance of writ of mandamus to the Opposite Parties directing them to regularise the service of the Petitioners reckoning their inter se seniority from the date of their regularisation of service vis-à-vis similarly situated employee w.e.f. 17.11.2017 and to allow them consequential service benefits as extended by virtue of order dated 12.09.2013 of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 25.04.2025 at Anenxure-8, whereby the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected their prayer for regularisation of their service.
2. The factual background of the Petitioners’ case in brief leading to filing of the present writ application is that the Govt. of Odisha took a policy decision which was intimat
The court ruled that the failure to properly consider the D.E.O.'s inquiry report regarding attendance invalidated the rejection of service regularisation, affirming rights based on continuity of ser....
Long and uninterrupted service under judicial protection legitimizes claims for regularization in public employment, irrespective of initial engagement irregularities.
Long-serving employees engaged under judicial orders are entitled to regularisation despite initial irregularities, emphasizing fairness and continuous service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regularisation of service could only be from the date of the petitioners' appointment in regular service i.e., 03.10.2012, and not from th....
Misleading the court by suppressing material facts and not approaching with clean hands can lead to the quashing of a tribunal's order.
The failure to implement earlier directions gave rise to a fresh cause of action, and discrimination in the regularization process is not justified.
Long-term casual employees performing perennial duties should be regularized despite administrative inertia, ensuring adherence to employment principles established in earlier legal precedents.
The court emphasized that willful and deliberate defiance of the order is pivotal in adjudicating contempt proceedings, and found that there was no deliberate or intentional disobedience in this case....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioners' service should have been regularized as they were engaged against sanctioned posts by following due process of selection and ....
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
