Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 458 (ORI)

DAMAYANTI SAHU v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/36272/2025 · 2026-01-05

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.36272 of 2025 Damayanti Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA COROM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 05.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The Petitioner therefore prays that your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to grant salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 11.02.2020 as a regular Govt. employee i.e. the date from her regularization in her service instead of 17.10.2022 with further direction to the Opp. Parties to release her differential salary from 11.02.2020 to 17.10.2022 within a stipulated period. And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute. And /or pass any other order/orders this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner state that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-11 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection. 5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-11 in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti