Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 34150 of 2022 Sanjaya Kumar Pradhan ..... Petitioner Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 3) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 20.04.2026 Order No. 11 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. J.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.08.09.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-13. Vide the said order, order of regularization passed in favour of the Petitioner on 04.02.2022 under Annexure-5 was cancelled. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that taking into account the continuance of the Petitioner as a contractual driver vide order dtd.04.02.2022 under Annexure-5, he was regularized in his services. However, basing on the clarification issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, the benefit was cancelled vide the impugned order dtd.08.09.2022 under Annexure-13. Page 2 of 3. 4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner got the benefit of regularization in view of the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its proceeding dtd.28.04.2021 under Annexure-15, Opp. Party No. 3 was not competent to cancel the order vide the impugned order dtd.08.09.2022. 4.2. It is also contended that in the counter so filed by Opp. Party No. 3, no such clarification so issued by the Registrar has been enclosed showing that the Registrar permitted Opp. Party No. 3 to cancel the earlier order. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order dt.08.09.2022 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. J.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 though supported the impugned order, but failed to produce any document showing any clarification having been issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies permitting Opp. Party No. 3, to cancel the benefit of order dtd.04.02.2022. No document has also been enclosed showing any further decision taken by the Board of Directors, permitting Opp. Party No. 3 to cancel the benefit of order dtd.04.02.2022. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner while continuing as a contractual driver, he was regularized vide order dtd.04.02.2022 basing on the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its meeting dtd.28.04.2021 under Annexure-15. However, on the ground that Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a clarification indicating therein that the benefit of 2013 Resolution, ipso facto does not apply to the employees of the Federation, benefit of the order of regularization was cancelled vide the impugned order dtd.08.09.2022 under Annexure-13. Page 3 of 3. 6.1. Since Petitioner got the benefit of regularization in terms of the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its proceeding dtd.28.04.2021 under Annexure-15 and there is no document enclosed to the counter affidavit showing any such further decision taken by the Board of Directors permitting Opp. Party No. 3 to cancel the benefit of order dtd.04.02.2022 and since no such document is enclosed to the counter affidavit showing any clarification issued by the Registrar, permitting Opp. Party No. 3 to cancel the order, this Court is of the view that the ground on which the impugned order has been passed is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, while quashing order dtd.08.09.2022 so issued under Annexure-13, this Court upheld the order passed earlier on 04.02.2022 under Annexure- 5 and directs Opp. Party No. 3 to treat the Petitioner as a regular employee in terms of the said order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha