Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.107 of 2025 Aswini Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Anima Kumari Dei -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Collector, Kandhamal Represented By Adv. - CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 21.04.2025 02 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer : “ The Petitioner, therefore prays that your Lordship would graciously be pleased to issue rule Nisi asking to the Opp.Parties to regularisation of service of the Petitioner for the period from the date of initial appointment i.e. 22.09.1988 to 25.03.1989 and seniority of the Petitioner be reckoned w.e.f. 28.09.1988. And in the event the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the rule absolute. And your Lordship may kindly direct the Opposite Parties to do the needful or pass any writ/s Page 2 of 4. order/s as think deemed fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, however such appointment was initially on ad hoc basis with effect from 22.09.1988. Initially the Petitioner joined in the Office of the S.D.O.,Baliguda as Junior Clerk. Thereafter, his service was extended for a period of 28 days vide order dated 01.12.1988. On 31.12.1988 the Petitioner was again appointed for a period of 89 days vide Office order dated 31.12.1988 issued by the Collector, Phulbani. Finally, the Petitioner joined as a Junior Clerk vide Office orderNo.1710 dated 20.03.1989 against a sanctioned vacant post in the Office of the Collector, Phulbani. While working as Junior Clerk pursuant to the appointment order dated 20.03.1989, the Petitioner filed a representation before the Collector, Phulbani, Opposite Party No.2 on 15.11.1994 with a prayer for regularisation of his ad hoc period of service and to counter the same for the purpose of considering the seniority of the Petitioner in service. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that to a query of the R.D.C., Southern Division, Berhampur, the Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani vide his letter dated 09.06.2021 provided information to the Secretary to R.D.C., Southern Division, Berhampur. In the letter dated 09.06.2021 it has been mentioned that initially the Petitioner joined on ad hoc basis on ad hoc basis under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for a period of 60 days and was posted in the Office of the S.D.O., Baliguda. Subsequently the same was extended by a further period of 28 days and 89 days respectively vide Page 3 of 4. letter dated 01.12.1988 and 26.12.1988. She further contended that the Petitioner was appointed temporarily on a regular post on 19.03.1989. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined on regular basis with effect from 25.03.1989. She also contended that although several official communications had taken place between the Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani and the R.D.C., Southern Division, Phulbani, however no final decision has been taken on the grievance of the present Petitioner. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties contended that on perusal of the Writ Petition, it appears that the grievance of the Petitioner has not been redressed. He further submitted that the same is due to lack of proper information. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party No.2 by filing a fresh representation with a further direction to Opposite Party No.2 to consider the same in accordance with law, he will have no objection to the same. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to this Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all relevant documents within a period of two weeks. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider Page 4 of 4. the grievance of the Petitioner involved in the representation and to consider the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order within two months from the date of communication of this order by the Petitioner. Final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days from the date of taking decision on the representation of the Petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary