Page 1 of 5. 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 Page 2 of 5. 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 Page 3 of 5. 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.696 of 2018 and similar other writ application. This Court by virtue of a detailed judgment dated 22.04.2022 allowed the writ application by taking into consideration the fact that the case of similarly placed persons were before the Administrative Tribunal and the Odisha Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2018 in O.A. No.53(C) of 2016 and a batch of similar other matters, directed the Opposite Parties to regularise the service of the applicant before the Tribunal. Although, such order was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition, the order of the Tribunal was confirmed. Later on, the order passed by the Tribunal as well as this Court were also affirmed by the Hon’ble Page 4 of 5. Supreme Court. Accordingly, by virtue of the common order dated 22.04.2022, this Court allowed the prayer of similarly situated persons with a direction to the Opposite Parties to count the service period of the Petitioner as well as other similarly placed persons from the date of their initial appointment as Resource Teacher and to extend the consequential benefits like seniority, promotion, pension and fixation of pay scale etc. as is due and admissible. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner by virtue of her reasoned and speaking order dated 20.05.2024 at Annexure-17. While supporting the impugned rejection order, learned counsel for the State contended that the appointment of the Petitioner was against the schematic post. Therefore, after abolition of the scheme the Petitioner has no right to claim any benefit either to continue in service or other consequential service benefits. Drawing attention of this Court to the impugned rejection order, learned counsel for the State stated before this Court that the Opposite Party No.1 has taken into consideration the grounds taken by the Petitioner in her representation and by virtue of a speaking and reasoned order, the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the impugned rejection order at Annexure-17 does not call for any interference by this Court, at this stage. As such, it was prayed that the writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the submissions made by both sides, further on a careful examination of the factual background as well as the Page 5 of 5. documents annexed to the writ application, this Court is of the view that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Kanhu Charan Jena vs. State of Odisha and others in WPC(OAC) No.696 of 2018 and a batch of similar other matters which were disposed of vide order dated 22.04.2022. As such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the case of the Petitioner is to be governed by order dated 22.04.2022, which has been passed in the case of similarly placed persons and which has also been upheld not only by the Division Bench of this Court but also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP bearing SLP(C) Diary No.20666 of 2024 vide order dated 03.09.2024. Accordingly, the present writ application is being disposed of in terms of the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in WPC(OAC) No.696 of 2018 and the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 at Annexure-17 is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, The Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis