p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A No.1445 of 2024 In the matter of an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 from order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9708 of 2024. ----------- State of Odisha & Another … Appellants -versus- Barendra Krishna Nayak & Anr. … Respondents Advocates Appeared in this case For Appellants - Mr. Subash Bikash Panda, Addl. Govt. Advocate For Respondents - M/s. Atul Tripathy & A. Sahoo, Advocates [R-1] M/s. Debasis Nayak, S. K. Sahoo, S Patel & P. K. Behera, Advocates [P.R.] ------------ CORAM : MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 29.01.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. The State has preferred this Intra-Court Appeal challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, p. 2 whereby the Respondent-Employee’s W.P.(C) No.9708 of 2024 having been favoured, the following relief has been granted: “5. In view of such position, the opposite parties are directed to regularize the service of the Petitioners within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.” 2. Learned AGA Mr. Panda, in his usual vehemence, argues that the impugned order has been made without giving due opportunity to the Appellants and therefore, the same is grossly in violation of principles of natural justice and as a consequence is liable to be voided. He draws our attention to 12.04.1993 letter of the Secretary to the Department of Finance issued to all the Secretaries of the Department to the effect that no person shall be engaged after 12.04.1993, and submits that the engagement of the Respondent-employee itself is illegal; that being the position, no relief could have been granted to the Respondent-employee by the learned Single Judge. He also drew our attention to the Resolution dated 15.05.1997 published in the State Gazette to the effect that those who have been engaged during post-ban period, should not be granted benefit under the said Resolution. So arguing, he seeks voiding of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee, per contra, opposes the Appeal making submission in justification p. 3 of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He draws attention of the Court to the letter dated 15.12.2000 issued by the Director of Municipal Administration to the Executive Officers of all Urban Local Bodies and says that the ban order or the Resolution, which Mr. Panda pressed into service, would not be applicable to the case of his client. He also places reliance on the decisions in Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, Dharam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 998 and decision of this Bench made in W.A. No.857 of 2024 between Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Bijay Kumar Samal & connected matters disposed off on 30.07.2025. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 4.1. The vehemence submission of Mr. Panda that the learned Single Jude entered the impugned order without giving opportunity of hearing, may not be much disputed. However, we have given full hearing at the appellate stage to demonstrate merits in the Appeal as if it is original proceeding. The Apex Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 has observed that the lacuna of depriving a person of opportunity of p. 4 hearing at the initial stage can be cured by giving full opportunity at the appellate stage. This is a kind of post-decisional hearing. Thus whatever prejudice caused is set right. 4.2. The second contention of Mr. Panda that there was a complete embargo against engagement otherwise than on regular recruitment w.e.f. 12.04.1993 and therefore, any entry post-ban is illegal, is difficult to countenance. Reasons for this are not far to seek; firstly, a ban of the kind cannot be treated as an impregnable China Wall; secondly, even after the ban, thousands of employees were engaged, may be in violation thereof, and the State cannot feign ignorance of the same. Secondly, in thousands of cases, this Court and the Apex Court have granted regularisation in worthy matters notwithstanding ban of the kind; thirdly, no action is taken against the officials who trampled the ban and made such engagements. Ban of the kind was only a measure of economic austerity and not anything beyond. If the ban were to be mandatory, the State would not have ignored its violation with impunity; lastly, whatever arguable ‘illegality’, would diminish year by year and should vanish at a long point of time, as has happened in this case. Page 5 of 6 4.3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-employee is more than justified in drawing our attention to the letter dated 15.12.2000, which reads as under: “Further, the D.I.Rs/N.M.Rs engaged before 19.05.97 may continue with consolidated wage in accordance with this Department Circular No.16880/HUD, dated 15.05.1999, and the regularization of their services in non-L.F.S. cadre may be considered by the respective Councils, befitting their qualifications in the respective posts, as well as on completion of 10 years as D.I.Rs/N.M.Rs against sanctioned posts only. Deviation, if any, will be seriously viewed.” Mr. Panda interjects at this stage to tell us that in the absence of sanctioned post, the letter of Director, Municipal Administration would not come to the rescue of the Respondent-employee. We do not agree with this, because the letter dated 31.01.2024 issued by the Commissioner of Cuttack Municipal Corporation, a copy whereof was Annexure-8 in the W.P.(C) No.9708 of 2024, gives an indelible impression that there are two posts, and that the Respondent-employee is working against one of them. The said document formed part of writ petition also. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee is more than justified in placing reliance on the march of law from Umadevi supra to Jaggo supra and to an extent the rigour in the former has been diluted. In the above circumstances, this writ appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly p. 6 it is, costs having been reluctantly made easy. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within a period of six weeks, without giving scope for punitive action in contempt jurisdiction. Web copy of the judgment be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 29th day of January, 2026/AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer