Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2617 of 2026 Dinabandhu Rout ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra -versus- Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (O.U.A.T.), represented through its Vice- Chancellor, Bhubaneswar, Khurda and others. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 02.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: i) direct the Opp. Parties to count the past ad hoc service from 18.01.1991, along with regular service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension, in terms of the decision in the case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel Vrs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Page 2 of 3. Application No.20185 of 2018, which has been affirmed in LPA No.762/2020(decided on 13.10.2020), and Special Leave to Appeal(C) No.l109/2022 (decided on 18.02.2022) and thereby quash the Order, dated 30.12.2025, passed by the Opp. Party No.2 vide Annexure-7 for the interest of justice; (ii) pass such other order(s)or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that although the Petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits on the basis of regularization of his adhoc period of service with effect from 18.1.1991 to 24.04.1998, however, the Opposite Parties have not taken into consideration the aforesaid adhoc period of service of the Petitioner. He further submitted that in the meantime the Petitioner has retired from service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although the prayer of the Petitioner for regularization of his adhoc period of service has been rejected, however, he wants to file a better application before the authorities along with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue involved in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has no objection in the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance in terms of any judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court provided the same is applicable to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the sides and on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking into Page 3 of 3. consideration the nature of the grievance, this Court is inclined to grant another opportunity to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with the supporting documents and the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner before the Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order within period of eight weeks from the date of filing such representation. The final decision so taken on such representation be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. The entire exercise as directed hereinabove shall be carried out without being influenced by previous rejection order. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis