Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.16511 of 2026 Debendra Prasad Sunani ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Sameer Kumar Das -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – S. Behera, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 23.06.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order dtd: 06.10.2025 of the Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure- 5 and modify his order dtd: 08.01.2018 and to regularize the service of the petitioner + as a Regular Zilla Parishad Teacher on completion of six years of service instead of 8 years as Ganasikshyak and to grant him all consequential service and financial benefit within a stipulated period as deem Page 2 of 6. fit and proper as his case is squarely covered by the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Bishnu Ch. Naik Vs. State of Odisha and others (W.A. No. 517 of 2024 disposed of on 18.03.2024) confirmed in SLP (C) Diary No. 14086 of 2026 and batch of cases disposed of on 01.04.2026; And/or pas any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the fitness of the case; And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Ganasikshyak on 30.06.2008 by the Opposite Party No.3. While the Petitioner was discharging his duty the Government of Odisha came up with policy decision vide Resolution dated 04.12.2013. As per the said policy decision the Ganasikshyaks discharging their duties, on completion of six year of service were to be regularized. In view of the aforesaid policy decision, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the service of the Petitioner should have been regularized on completion of six years of service from the date of his initial appointment on 30.06.2008. However, contrary to the aforesaid policy decision, the Opposite Party shall regularize the service of the Petitioner upon completion of eight years of service. By virtue of order dated 08.01.2018 at Annexure-4 to the writ application. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner emphatically contended before this Court that similarly situated other persons have been given benefit of the policy decision of the Page 3 of 6. Government and the benefit accrued under the Government Notification dated 04.01.2024. He further contended that in the meantime, the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons approached the Collector, Nuapada with a request to grant the benefit of regularization upon completion of six years of service by modifying the earlier regularization order dated 08.01.2018. 6. Since no decision was taken by the Collector, Nuapada on the representation of the Petitioner and similarly situated other persons, being aggrieved by such inaction, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.14418 of 2025, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.05.2025 with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the fresh representation of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in W.A. No.524 of 2024 and a batch of similar other writ applications disposed of by a common judgment. After disposal of the abovenoted writ application, though the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party has erroneously rejected the representation of the Petitioner vide order dated 06.10.2025 at Annexure-5. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the issue involved in present writ application also directly and substantially in issue in W.A. No.524 of 2024 and a batch of similar other writ application (Bishnu Naik Page 4 of 6. and others vs. State of Odisha and others) was adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court and the same was disposed of by a common judgment dated 18.03.2025. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court allowed the prayer of the Appellant in the Writ Appeal directing the State-Opposite Parties to antedate the regularization of the Appellant in that case by modifying the earlier regularization order. The Hon’ble Division Bench has also taken note of a policy decision of the Government and has observed that the service of the Appellant should have been regularized upon completion of six years of service. The aforesaid common judgment of the Division Bench 18.03.2025 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State- Opposite Parties by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.1408 of 2026. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner produce a copy of order dated 01.04.2026. On perusal of the said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovenoted SLP, this Court observed that the SLP has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation has in concluding that the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Bishnu Naik’s case (supra) and a batch of similar other writ appeals have attained finality in the meantime. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, it appears that after disposal of the earlier writ application the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties, after due consideration of the prayer of the Petitioner, have rejected the prayer of the Petitioner by virtue of the Page 5 of 6. impugned order dated 06.10.2025 at Annexure-5. He further submitted that while rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for regularization upon completion of six years’, the service period of the Petitioner has been discussed in detail and, after a due consideration the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite Party No.3. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the State contended that the prayer of the Petitioner challenging the rejection of order dated 06.10.2025 does not call for any interference by this Court. It was also contended that the appeal preferred by the State-Opposite Parties was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the issue involved in the present writ application has not attained finality. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective Parties, on a careful examination of the background facts and further taking note of the policy decision of the State Government as well as the interim order dated 06.10.2025 at Annexure-5, this Court found that as per the policy decision of the Government the service of the Ganasikshyakas is required to be regularized upon completion of six years of continuous service. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the service of the Petitioner was regularized upon completion of eight years of service. Moreover, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has upheld the policy decision and has issued direction to regularize the service of the Petitioner upon completion of six years of Page 6 of 6. service by antedating the earlier regularization order in Bishnu Naik’s case (supra). In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3 to reconsider the prayer of the Petitioner as has been directed by this Court in the earlier writ application by taking into consideration the judgments of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 18.03.2025 passed in W.A. No.524 of 2025 and batch and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No.14086 of 2026, and dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ application stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT