Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2033 DAILYLAW 3 (ORI)

DEBENDRANATH SATHUA v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/2033/2026 · 2026-01-29

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

body2033

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.2033 of 2026 Debendranath Sathua …. Petitioner Mr. Akhand, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P. Behera, ASC COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 29.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Even though an innocuous prayer has been made for consideration of the representation made by the Petitioner under Annexure-3, but in course of hearing, it is fairly contended that Petitioner is out of employment since 1993 after his engagement vide order dt.08.4.1991 under Annexure-1. It is also contended that Petitioner though had moved the Tribunal in O.A. No.413(C ) of 1995 and the Tribunal directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim for regularization vide order dt.16.12.2011, but no decision has been taken on the same. 4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since it is not disputed that Petitioner is not in service w.e.f 1993, no such direction could have been issued by the Tribunal on 16.12.2011 directing for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim for regularization. It is contended that since Petitioner is not in employment since 1993 and he had already attained the age of 57 years, no fruitful purpose will be served by directing the authority to consider the representation. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner after his engagement as a DLR vide order dt.08.03.1991, was not allowed to continue since 1993 and the same is also not disputed. 5.1. Since Petitioner is not in employment w.e.f the year 1993, no direction could have been issued by the Tribunal to consider his claim for regularization. 5.2. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction for consideration of the representation filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-3. 6. The writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita