IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8933 of 2025 Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi and others …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Sr. Panel Counsel -Versus- Ashok Kumar Sahoo …. Opposite Party Ms. S. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 08. ORDER 23.04.2026 The Union Government and its Entities are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Cuttack Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 28.08.2024, whereby OP- Employee’s O.A. No.561 of 2018 having been favoured, relief has been accorded to him vide paragraphs-7 & 8 thereto, which have the following texts: “7.The sole stand of the respondents is that since there was no post in DDK Bhubaneswar the applicant could not be regularized and after circular dated 22.10.2012, the case of the applicant could be considered. This Tribunal does not accept the said submission of the respondents in view of their categorical stand before Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1996 that the applicant has been regularized. This Tribunal had also expressed the same opinion in its order dated 10.03.2010. The respondents in compliance to the said orders were duty bound to regularize the service of the applicant retrospectively. 8. It is seen from letter dated 30.08.2023, that one post of Make Up Assistant was vacant since 24.07.2002 against which the applicant was appointed on 03.06.2015 at Kolkata. Therefore the respondents should have regularized the service of the applicant at least from the said date i.e. 24.07.2002. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to regularize the service of the applicant retrospectively w.e.f. 24.07.2002 and he would be entitled to all consequential service benefits. The respondents are to pass consequential orders to that effect within a period of 120 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the OP-Employee, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, tells us that a similar order made by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.129/2018 & 725/2019 between Janaki Prasad Mohaptra v. Union of India and others has already been implemented by the Petitioners herein vide Order No.27(7)/2025-A.I/DDK/BBSR/3343 dated 10.12.2025 and therefore, as a matter of parity, this Petition should be turned down with a direction to implement the impugned order of the Tribunal. 3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on being confronted with aforesaid order of the Prasar Bharati dated 10.12.2025, very fairly does not dispute the position. Prasar Bharati, being a Central Government Entity, has to conduct itself as a model employer in the light of Apex Court decision in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234 and therefore, cannot discriminate against the OP-Employee, who also constitutes a similar circumstanced homogenous class of employees. In the above circumstances, we decline indulgence in the matter and thus, Writ Petition fails coupled with a direction to implement impugned order of the Tribunal, as has been done in other similar cases, within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks, without driving the OP-Employee to take contempt proceedings. Now, no costs. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge ( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge Anisha Designation: Jr. Stenographer