p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37259 of 2023 Umakanta Kar …. Petitioner Mr.Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate -versus- The Registrar, Utkal University & Others … Opposite Parties Mr.Tarananda Pattanayak, Advocate for O.Ps.1 & 2. Mr.Satya Brata Mohanty, AGA for O.Ps.3 & 4 CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER 24.09.2025 This case is delinked from the batch of cases and taken up as under:- The Petitioner has aired his grievance, as is emerging from the text of prayer column of the petition, which reads as under:- “Therefore, it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit this case and issue notice to the Opp. Parties to file their show cause as to why the case of the Petitioner shall not be allowed and after hearing the parties, the case of the petitioner be allowed and pass necessary order to set aside Annexure-8 dated 20.10.2023 and necessary direction be given to the opp. Parties No.1, 2 & 3 to take steps to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 19.05.1990 as has been done in case of the similarly placed employee namely Parikhita Mallick and Gadadhar Sethy and financial and Order No. 03 p. 2 consequential benefit to that effect be sanctioned and disbursed within a stipulated period” 2. The short and sweet of the petition is that the date of regularization of petitioner should to be with effect from 19.05.1990 when he gained entry in service, may be on daily wage basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that several persons were engaged vide order dated 19.05.1990, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-1 wherein the name of his client figures at Sl. No.139; all others barring a few came to be regularized in service with effect from the date of their entry into service whereas his client has been meted out a step-motherly treatment, inasmuch as he has been given 18.03.2011 as the date of regularization when it ought to have been 19.05.1990. Counsel draws attention of the Court to petitioner-s earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No.24239 of 2023 disposed off on 07.08.2023. 3. Learned panel counsel for the University, in his usual style, opposes the petition contending that his client being a State-University, it depends upon the funds to be given by the State Government; any appointments would require funds since an appointee has to be given salary/emoluments; same is the case when a daily wager is regularized in service since he p. 3 attains the status of regular employee and eventually, there shall be amelioration of drawals. He tells the Court that though the petitioner was given order of regularization on 06.02.2014, he first approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.24239 of 2023, which was disposed of on 07.08.2023 and therefore, even if regularization is to be effective from the date of entry into service, it has to be only on notional basis is broadly acceptable to this Court. Therefore, he contends the interference of this Court is not called for especially when petitioner has already been given regularization vide order dated 06.02.2014 with effect from 18.03.2011. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed on 19.05.1990 along with several others and those several others have already been regularized in service with effect from the respective dates of their entry. That being the position, what applies to goose, shall apply to gander and therefore, the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized with retrospective effect from 19.05.1990 on the principle of parity and equality, which Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India enshrine. Page 4 of 5 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in drawing the attention of Court to the order dated 07.08.2023 passed in his earlier W.P.(C) No.24239 of 2023 wherein he was permitted to give a representation coupled with a direction to University to cause its consideration. The University is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, vide decision of Apex Court in Ujam Bai v. State of UP, AIR 1962 SC 1621 and therefore all its action are subject to discipline of Part-III of the Constitution and they are liable to examination in writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is apparent discrimination of petitioner at the hands of University Authorities and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 06.02.2014 to the extent it fixes petitioner’s effective date of regularization as 18.03.2011 coupled with a direction to fix “19.05.1990” as the date of his regularization. Further, the petitioner shall be given notional benefit of retrospective regularization till 20.12.2022 and the monetary benefits only with effect from 21.12.2022. So far as the financial aspects are concerned, it hardly needs to be stated that the opposite p. 5 party no.4 has to make appropriate budgetary allocation in this regard. Compliance within three (3) months, to be reckoned from this day. Now, no costs. Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Basu Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY