Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19 (ORI)

MINA BAGH v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/37373/2025 · 2026-01-12

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 37373 of 2025 Mina Bagh ..... Petitioner Mr. L. Mohanty, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 12.01.2026 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why; i) a direction shall not be issued to the opp. parties especially Opp. Party No.2 to regularize the service of the petitioner against the post of Sweeper as per the letter dated 13.12.2024 issued by the opp. party no.3 under Annexure -2 taking into consideration the vacancy position dated 26.08.2025 under Annexure -3 and taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court of India rendered in between Jaggo Versus Union of India in SLP No.5580 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024, Shripal and another Versus Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No.8157 of2024 dated 31.01.2025 and Dharam Singh and Page 2 of 2. others Versus State of VP and others in CA No.8558 of2018 dated 19.08.2025. ii) And after hearing the parties be pleased to direct the opp. parties, especially opp. party no.l and 2 to regualrise the service of the petitioner against the post of Sweeper from the date of availability of vacancy and release all consequential service and financial benefits iii) And pass such other order/orders granting complete relief to the petitioner” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the request available at Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition though is pending, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. 5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the above noted request available at Annexure-2 in accordance with law, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti