IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3566 of 2026 Bijay Kumar Panda …. Petitioner Mr. B.C. Ghadei, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.R. Sethy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 13.02.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: - “It is therefore prayed that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show case as to : I) Why the financial benefits of the period from dt.29.07.2023 to dt.01.05.2011 shall not be extended/granted to the petitioner in the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist. p. 2 p. 2 II) Why the arrears of salary of the petitioner shall not be calculated for the aforesaid period and disbursed in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated period. III) Why any other relief (s) as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper shall not be granted to the petitioner. If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to make the rule absolute by issuing appropriate writ(s)/ direction(s) to the opposite parties to grant the aforesaid relieves in favour of the petitioner to secure the ends of justice.” 4. It is contended that on self-same issue, petitioner has made a representation under Annexure-7 and the same be considered in accordance with law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that claiming similar benefit, petitioner was before the Tribunal in O.A. No.3170(C) of 2014. The Tribunal vide order dated 06.02.2018 under Annexure-5 has held as follows:- “8. Hence, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to modify the office order No.18570, dt.28.10.2013 (Annx.8) and issue appointment order to the applicant as Jr. Clerk-cum-Typist on regular basis w.e.f. 29.7.2003 and notionally fix his pay from that day but he will be entitled to actual financial benefit three years preceding to filing of the O.A. i.e. since 1.5.2011 and the arrear dues be paid to him.” 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since similar claim as made in the Writ Petition, has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal with passing of an order under Annexure-5, no further claim on self-same issue is maintainable and the Writ Petition is liable for dismissal. p. 3 p. 3 6. At this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal since held the petitioner eligible to get the benefit notionally, he is aggrieved by the same and accordingly he has made representation to get the benefit of regularization from his date of joining. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, it is not disptued that claim made in the Writ Petition, was before the Tribunal on earlier occasion. After appointment of the petitioner vide office order dated 28.10.2013 similar claim made by the petitioner was duly adjudicated vide order dated 06.02.2018 under Annexure-5, and the same was never assailed by the petitioner, if he was otherwise aggrieved. 7.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the present Writ Petition claiming similar relief, as per the considered view of this Court is not maintainable. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of as not maintainable accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev