Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 59634 (ORI)

KISHORE CHANDRA MOHANTY v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/25680/2024 · 2025-09-18

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.25680 of 2024 Kishore Chandra Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. N. Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 18.09.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- i) direct/ order the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption from Group-D to Group-C in class-III Regular (wages) establishment in view of the benefit given to other similar situated employees namely chandramani Sahu, Janardhan Nanda and Subas Chandra chhaura and many others and thereby quashing the office order dated .31.07.2024 so far as the petitioner is concerned. ii) Pass such other order (s)/direction (s) as m ay be deem ed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. It is contended that on the face of his continuance as a work charged Mate in the establishment of O.P. No.5, petitioner is yet to be regularized in his services. It is also contended that on the face of repeated approach being made by the petitioner, when no decision was taken, the present Writ Petition was filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 4.1. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to O.P. No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioner. 5. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Parties, but no stand has been taken as to whether such claim of the petitioner as made under Annexure-6 has been considered either way. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, directs O.P. No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of absorption in the regular establishment. Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application along with copy of this order before O.P.No.2 for compliance. O.P. No.2 is directed to take a decision in accordance with law and the decision governing the field within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the order along with the representation from the petitioner. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev