Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.17524 of 2026 Rabindra Nath Mohanty ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sanjib Mohanty -versus- The Registrar, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, BBSR and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. Tarananda Pattanayak CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 20.07.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner has aired his grievance, as is emerging from the text of prayer column of the petition, which reads as under:- “Under such circumstances, it is humble prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the 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 the Annexure-9 dtd:15.05.2026 and further direction be given to the opp. parties to fix date of regularization of Page 2 of 5. the petitioner from his initial date of entry i.e. 26.08.1990 by modifying the Annexure- 3 dt 6.2.2014 and the petitioner be given all other financial and consequential service benefit. And/or to pass any other order(s) which deemed fit and proper for effective and adjudication of the case;” 3. The short and sweet of the petition is that the date of regularization of petitioner should to be with effect from 26.08.1990 when he gained entry in service, may be on daily wage basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that several persons were engaged on daily wage basis, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-1 wherein the name of his client figures at Sl. No.146; 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 26.08.1990. Counsel draws attention of the Court to petitioner earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No.29571 of 2024 disposed off on 10.12.2024. 4. 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 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 Page 3 of 5. of regularization on 06.02.2014, he first approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.29571 of 2024, which was disposed of on 10.12.2024 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. 5. Mr. T.N. Pattanayak, learned counsel for the University emphatically argued that the State Government has given concurrence to the University to regularize the service of the Petitioner and that the salary component shall be paid from out of the own funds of the University. At this juncture, Mr. Pattanayak, learned counsel for the University citing paucity of fund of the University, contended before this Court that the University doesn't have any source of income of its own. He further contended that for payment of the salary component of the employees who are working under the University, the Government of Odisha provides funds to the University. Such fund is being allocated to the University on the basis of a budgetary allocation made by the Government on the basis of a proposal sent by the University to the Government. In the aforesaid context, this Court would like to observe here that once the service of the Petitioner is regularized, he is to be treated like other regular employees of the University. Therefore, there cannot be any discrimination with regard to the pay scale or the source of the fund for payment of the salary component. Thus, it is open to the University to include the salary component of the Petitioner in their annual budget and the same be sent to the Government for approval Page 4 of 5. and disbursal of the budgetary allocation in the head of salary payment to the employees of the University. In the event any such composite proposal is sent by the University, the same shall be duly considered by the Government and necessary budgetary allocation be made in favour of the University and the funds be disbursed to the University for disbursement of the salary component of the employees. Thus, this Court holds that the regularization of the service of the Petitioner cannot be withheld only on the ground that the University is facing a situation of financial crunch. 6. 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 26.08.1990 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 26.08.1990 on the principle of parity and equality, which Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India enshrine. 6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in drawing the attention of Court to the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in his earlier W.P.(C) No.29571 of 2024 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 Page 5 of 5. 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 “26.08.1990” as the date of his regularization. Further, the petitioner shall be given notional benefit of retrospective regularization till 09.12.2024 and the monetary benefits only with effect from 10.12.2024. So far as the financial aspects are concerned, it hardly needs to be stated that the opposite 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 order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout