IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22861 of 2024 Nakhetra Malini Pattnaik ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. –

Mr. Amiya Kumar Chhatoi -versus-

State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

18.02.2026 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief: -

“In view of the facts stated above the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs, direction/ directions, order/orders, Mandamus quashing the rejection order dated 20.05.2024 under annexure-17 and direct the Opp. Parties to count the period of service of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment as Resource Teacher for the purpose of seniority for promotion, protection of pay and revision of her pay under the ORSP Rules, 2008 and 2017 as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner.

And the Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to cover service of the petitioner under Pre-amended OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and Odisha GPF Rules, 1938 as has been extended in favour of similarly situated employees like Swarnalata Bebarta Pattnaik in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal dtd.04.01.2018 under annexure-8 which was upheld by this Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court under annexure-9 and annexure-10 with all consequential benefits within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

And further be pleased to issue pass any other order/orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that by filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash the order of rejection dated 20.05.2024, whereby the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for grant of service benefits by taking into consideration the entire period of service of the Petitioner. He further submitted that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36635 of 2021 which was disposed of on 01.12.2021, thereby directing the opposite party/appropriate authority to consider the Petitioner’s representation and dispose of the same within four months thereof. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 considered the case of the Petitioner and, vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 at Annexure-17 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner on the ground that the appointment of the Petitioner was under a particular scheme. As such, the Petitioner could not have claimed the regularisation of her service as a matter of right after winding of the said project. While rejecting the claim of the Petitioner the Opposite Parties have also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka -Vs.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as the State of Orissa & Others -Vs.- Dipti Paul, reported in 2000 (10) SCC 413, and in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employee’s Union -Vs.- Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors. reported in (1992) 4 SCC 99. Being aggrieved by such order passed by the Opposite Party No.1 thereby rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for regularisation of her service, the Petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ application challenging the impugned rejection order dated 20.05.2024 at Annexure-17 to the writ application.

5. In course of his argument learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before this Court that an identical issue was directly and substantially in issue before this Court in a batch of writ applications bearing WPC(OAC) No.