Page 1 of 7. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17167 of 2017 CNR No.ODHC010179332017 Sudhakar Tripathy ..... Petitioner Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha &Ors. ..... Opp. Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. P. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 07.08.2026 Order No.24 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Puri Municipality now Puri Municipal Corporation.. 3. Pursuant to order dated 29.07.2026 basing on the instruction so provided by the Puri Municipal Corporation in its letter dated 06.08.2026, Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel contended that Petitioner is continuing as on date as against the post of Dresser and drawing the salary as due and admissible as against the post of Dresser also. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order so passed by Opp. Party No.1 vide order dated 30.06.2017 under Annexure-11, contended that pursuant to the selection process initiated by the then Executive Officer, Puri Page 2 of 7. Municipality, Petitioner made an application as against the post of Pharmacist in Puri Municipal Dispensary, Puri. Even though Petitioner was found eligible, but since there was only one availble vacant post of Pharmacist, the person placed at Sl. No.1 of the select list was given the benefit of appointment as against the post of Pharmacist. 4.1. It is however contended that considering the request made by the Petitioner and taking into account the fact that he was also found eligible to get the benefit, vide office order dated 30.06.1998 so issued by the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality under Annexure- 2, Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Dresser. 4.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Dresser vide order under Annexure-2, but vide office order dated 06.09.2005, so issued by the Executive Officer under Annexure-6, Petitioner was allowed to officiate as Pharmacist in Municipal Hospital, Swargadwar, Puri and he continued in that capacity till 21.06.2020. 4.3. It is further contended that taking into account his continuance as against the post of Pharmacist though in officiating capacity w.e.f. 06.09.2005, Petitioner made various application for his absorption against the post of Pharmacist and the same was also favourably recommended by the Puri Municipality. As the same was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.22613 of 2010. 4.4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition, claim of the Petitioner however was rejected vide order dated 30.06.2017 of Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-11. Page 3 of 7. 4.5. It is contended that on the face of such rejection on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Pharmacist in Swargadwar Hospital of Puri Municipality, Petitioner continued as officiating Pharmacist till 21.06.2020 so available vide the documents enclosed under Annexure-16 series. 4.6. It is also contended that Petitioner though was posted in Swargadwar Hospital of Puri Municipality as a Dresser, but he discharged the duty of Pharmacist in terms of the order issued under Annexure-6 on 06.09.2005 and even after the aforesaid hospital was taken over by the Govt. w.e.f. 03.03.2024, Petitioner is discharging the duty of Pharmacist in the said hospital as on date. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was originally found eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Pharmacist in terms of the selection process initiated by the Puri Municipality in the year 1998 and he continued in officiating capacity as against the post of Pharmacist w.e.f. 06.09.2005 to 21.06.2020 and is continuing as such as on date on the face of the taken over of the hospital by the Govt., the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was earlier rejected vide the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 under Annexure-11, is no more sustainable in the eye of law. 4.8. Since Petitioner is continuing as against the post of Pharmacist though in officiating capacity w.e.f. 06.09.2005 to till date, even after the Hospital was taken over by the Govt. w.e.f. 03.03.2024, Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of absorption as against the post of Pharmacist in Swargadwar Hospital needs a fresh consideration by Opp. Party No.1. Page 4 of 7. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Nakula Naik Vs. Executive Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation reported in 2017 (1) OLR 293, this Court in para 8 of the said judgment has held as follows:- “8. From the pleadings available on record, it is evident that admittedly the petitioner has been discharging his duty as Market Fee Collector/Rent Collector for quite a long period, i.e., from 1989 and, by this process, he has completed for more than 26 years of service. There is no specific denial made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not discharging the duty of Market Fee Collector. But only stand has been taken that due to non-availability of vacancy for the post of Market Fee Collector/Rent Collector, the benefit admissible to the petitioner has not been extended. The said contention cannot be accepted as in the meantime 26 years have elapsed and many persons must have retired from service and consequential vacancies must have occurred to consider the claim of the petitioner for absorption against the post of Market Fee Collector/Rent Collector. But, as a matter of fact, due to inaction of the authority, the petitioner has not been adjusted till date nor has been extended the benefit, as claimed by him. The petitioner has been discharging his duty against the post of Market Fee Collector/Rent Collector for a quite long time, for which it can be safely said that there is need of post and the opposite parties availed the benefit of work performed by the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot be denied salary as due and admissible to the said post on some pretext or other.” 5. Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Puri Municipality/ Puri Municipal Corporation contended that Petitioner after being Page 5 of 7. appointed as against the post of Dresser vide order dated 30.06.1998, because of exigency he was allowed to continue as officiating Pharmacist in terms of order dated 06.09.2005 under Annexure-6 and he continued to discharge such duty of Pharmacist in officiating capacity till 21.06.2020. However, at present, Petitioner is continuing as against the post of Dresser under Puri Municipal Corporation and drawing the salary as meant for the post of Dresser. It is also contended that Swargadwar Hospital, Puri has now been taken over by the Govt.-Opp. Party No.1 w.e.f. 03.03.2024 and the authorities of Puri Municipal Corporation is not in a position to consider Petitioner’s grievance. 6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Dresser vide order dated 30.06.1998 under Annexure-2 and he is continuing as such in the said capacity, Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 under Annexure-11. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner failed to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Pharmacist in terms of the notice issued by the then Puri Municipality on 23.04.1998 under Annexure-1. It is however found that since one post of Pharmacist was there and Petitioner’s position was at Sl. No.2, the person placed at Sl. No.1 was given the benefit of appointment as against the post of Pharmacist. 7.1. However, considering the request made by the Petitioner and his position in the select list, he was appointed as against the post of Dresser vide office order dated 30.06.1998 under Annexure-2. While Page 6 of 7. so continuing as against the post of Dresser, Petitioner was permitted to discharge the duty of Pharmacist in officiating capacity vide order dated 06.09.2005 under Annexure-6. 7.2. While continuing in the post of Pharmacist in officiating capacity w.e.f. 06.09.2005, claiming absorption as against the post of Parmacist in Swargadwar Hospital, he made series of representation and ultimately approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.22613 of 2010. 7.3. Petitioner’s claim for absorption as against the said post was also recommended by the authorities of Puri Municipality and CDM & PHO, Puri. However, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 under Annexure-11 of Opp. Party No.1. 7.4. Since it is found from the record that Petitioner continued as against the post of Pharmacist in officiating capacity w.e.f. 06.09.2005 till 21.06.2020 and as contended he is continuing in the said capacity till date even after the Hospital was taken up by the Govt. w.e.f. 03.03.2024, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of absorption as against the post of Pharmacist in Swargadwar Hospital, Puri. 7.5. This Court further observes that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the order passed by this Court in the case of Nakula Naik Vs. Executive Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, reported in 2017 (1) OLR 293 be taken into consideration. Page 7 of 7. 7.6. This Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti