The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8910 of 2024 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Kishor Chandra Tripathy …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Acharya, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Brahma, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing : 30.04.2025 | Date of Judgment: 16.05.2025 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by a person who had rendered 30 years of service on adhoc basis and after his retirement has approached this Court with a prayer to regularize his service with effect from his initial date of joining, i.e. 16.05.1987, as a Compounder in Ayurved in Gopabandhu Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Puri and for a further direction to the Opposite Parties to pay all other consequential service benefits to Page 1 of 25 the Petitioner as a regular government servant within a stipulated period of time. 2. The factual background leading to the filing of the present writ petition, in a nutshell, is that on 08.05.1987 the Petitioner was appointed by the Opposite Party No.2 in the post of Ayurdedic Pharmacist on adhoc basis. The pleadings further reveal that 06 posts of Ayurdedic Pharmacists were required to be filled up, i.e. 03 posts in the UR Category and 03 posts in the Reserved Category. Since no suitable candidate was found in the reserved category posts, considering the urgency and the importance assigned to the posts of Pharmacists, the Petitioner along with two others were appointed on adhoc basis against the reserved category posts till the same are de-reserved or such posts are filled up by the reserved category candidates. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment order, the Petitioner joined in the post of Pharmacist as ‘Ayurved Compounder’ at Government Ayurveda Hospital Paikamal, Sambalpur with the regular scale of pay of Rs.840-1240/-. 4. Since joining of the Petitioner in regular service, a service book was opened on 26.05.1988. While the Petitioner was Page 2 of 25 discharging his duty as a Pharmacist he was transferred to Gopabandhu Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Puri on 26.08.1991. After joining in Puri, the Petitioner continued to discharge his duty as a Pharmacist sincerely. However, the services of the Petitioner along with two other similarly situated persons were never regularized. Although, the Opposite Party No.2 had recommended the case of the Petitioner along with two other employees for regularization of their services vide letter dated 26.07.2004 under
Decision
Annexure-3 to the writ petition, however, no steps were taken to regularize the services of the Petitioner and similarly situated two other candidates. Again, on 05.11.2004, the Opposite Party No.2 recommended the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his service. 5. The writ petition further reveals that the Petitioner and two other similarly situated persons were initially appointed against reserved category posts on adhoc basis due to non- availability of reserved category candidates . He further contended that the Petitioner along with two other similarly situated persons continued to discharge the regular duties in the said posts continuously, without any break. In view of the provision contained in Rule-7 of the O.R.V. Act, the reserved post Page 3 of 25 occupied by the Petitioner belonging to the U.R. Category should have been de-reserved at the relevant point of time as the same was permissible till the provision was amended in the year 1992. The unamended Section-7 (which was existing prior to the amendment in the year 1992) of the O.R.V. Act provides that such posts could have been de-reserved due to non-availability of suitable candidates belonging to the U.R. Category. However, the same was not done till the year 1992 and in the year 1992 the law was amended and an embargo was created with regard to de- reservation of the posts belonging to the Class-III & Class-IV category. 6. While this was the position, on 25.04.2006, the Opposite Party No.2 once again recommended the case of the Petitioner and similarly situated two other persons for regularization of their services. A similar request was also made on 02.01.2007 by the Opposite Party No.2. Such request was once again repeated by the Opposite Party No.2 once again on 16.10.2007. Since the request of the Opposite Party No.2 was not attended to, the Opposite Party No.2 finally wrote a letter to the Joint Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Odisha on 29.11.2012. Despite the Petitioner approaching the authorities for Page 4 of 25 regularization of his service, on repeated occasions, and the Opposite Party No.2 recommending the case of the Petitioner for regularization on different occasions, as is evident from the letters under Annexure-3 series, no steps were taken by the State- Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the present Petitioner along with two other similarly situated persons, even though they were working continuously without any break and discharging the duties like other regular employees, who were occupying similar posts, albeit on regular basis. 7. Finally, the Petitioner filed a representation dated 20.01.2021 with a prayer for regularization of his service which was duly forwarded by the Opposite Party No.3 to the Opposite Party No.2. Since no action was taken on the same, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8849 of 2023 with a prayer for regularization of his service and for disbursal of all consequential financial and service benefits. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.03.2023 disposed of the above noted writ petition with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. Page 5 of 25 8. While this was the position, the Petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, has finally retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2024 while discharging his duty as a Compounder at Gopabandhu Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Puri. In the meantime, after considering the representation of the petitioner, as directed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8849 of 2023, the Opposite Party No.2 rejected the representation of the Petitioner vide his order dated 14.03.2024 . Finally, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the prayer as indicated in the body of the writ petition. 9. The Opposite Party No.2 has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the Opposite Parties have admitted the fact that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Pharmacist on adhoc basis against a reserved vacancy till the post was filled up by the U.R. candidates or the same was de-reserved, whichever is earlier and such appointment of the Petitioner, which was temporary, may be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Such appointment was given vide office order No.8548 dated 08.05.1987 of the Director of Indian Medicine & Homoeopathy, Odisha under Annexure-1. It has also been stated that although the appointment was against a reserved post, Page 6 of 25 however, the same was not de-reserved till the time the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Service (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Amendment Act, 1991 was enacted. In the aforesaid Amendment Act of the year 1991 a prohibition was introduced with regard to de-reservation of posts reserved exclusively for SC & ST Community. Thus, the Opposite Parties have stated that the claim for regularization of the service of the Petitioner cannot be considered in view of the new provisions introduced by way of the Amendment Act of the year 1991. 10. The State-Opposite Parties in their counter affidavit have referred to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2009 (11) SCC 655. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaks that for regularization of service, two conditions are required to be satisfied; firstly, the initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and secondly there must be a sanctioned post against which the employee must be working. As such, it has been stated that without compliance of the above noted two rules no claim for regularization can be entertained. The State-Opposite Parties have Page 7 of 25 also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu and another v. Tamilnadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and others reported in 2023 (3) SCR 390, and submitted that in the absence of any sanctioned posts, the State cannot be compelled to create the post and absorb the persons who are continuing in service. 11. The counter affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Parties further reveals that the Petitioner, with two other similarly situated persons, was continuing in service and they have been extended with the benefits such as periodic annual increment and opening and assigning of the GPF Account in favour of the Petitioner. However, such opening of GPF Account in favour of the Petitioner has been done inadvertently and as such the same could not be relied upon to support the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his service. It further reveals that pursuant to the order dated 02.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No.8849 of 2023, the Opposite Party No.2 has already disposed of the representation of the Petitioner by a speaking order dated 14.02.2024 and accordingly the representation of the Petitioner has been rejected. 12. In the counter affidavit the Opposite Parties have also relied upon the order of the Director, AYUSH, Odisha dated Page 8 of 25 14.03.2023 under Annexure-5. Further, emphasis has been laid on the ground taken in the rejection letter dated 14.03.2023 to the effect that the provision of de-reservation of posts under Section 7 of the O.R.V. Act, 1975 stood amended in the year 1992 by virtue of Odisha Act, 11 of 1992, thereby restriction has been imposed on de-reservation of the posts made for SC/ ST Category so far as, the same relates to Class-III & Class-IV posts in the government service. 13. The State-Opposite Parties have also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India to justify their action in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of their services. By referring to the judgment in M. Nagraj’s case (supra), the Opposite Parties have stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that while giving effect to the reservation policy the points therein have to be strictly adhered to. Further, the letter of the SC & ST Development Department, Government of Odisha has already been referred to the extent that the reserved posts cannot be de- reserved on the ground that suitable candidates are not available with regard such vacancies in the said category. Page 9 of 25 14. With regard to the fact that one of the co-workers of the Petitioner, namely Mr. Jagannath Mishra, who stands in a similar footing as a Pharmacist and who has been receiving pensionary benefits, the counter affidavit reveals that his service was never regularized and that steps have been taken to stop the pension that has been paid to the above named Jagannath Mishra, retired Pharmacist. In the counter affidavit, reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Nigam Ltd. Ajmer and another v. Chiganlal and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1351. The aforesaid judgment has been relied upon by the State-Opposite Parties to impress upon this Court that the date from which regularisation is to be granted is a matter which is to be decided by the employer by keeping in view a number of factors like the nature of work, number of posts lying vacant, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointment were made etc. Thus, ultimately in the counter affidavit the Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 15. Heard Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Page 10 of 25 State-Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. 16. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner at this stage contended that taking into consideration the admitted factual position involved in the present writ petition, the service of the Petitioner should have been regularized long ago, especially keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has rendered his service as a Pharmacist for last three decades. He further contended that the Petitioner, who was initially appointed on 08.05.1987 and pursuant to such appointment joined in duty on 16.05.1987, has been continuing against the regular post although the same was made for reserved category candidates. He further submitted that the Petitioner continuing on regular basis without any break and was discharging his duties. Although the condition on which the Petitioner was initially appointed was that the appointment given to the Petitioner is adhoc in nature, however, the same shall continue till such reserved posts are filled up by suitable candidates belonging to the reserve category or till the same are de-reserve in terms of the Section-7 of the O.R.V. Act, 1975. Page 11 of 25 17. In reality, since his appointment, the Petitioner continued to discharge his duties as a regular employee and he was getting a scale of pay, i.e. he was being paid at par with all other regular employees. There was no disciplinary proceeding whatsoever against the Petitioner in comparison to the regular employees who were also working against similar posts. Moreover, since the date of appointment of the Petitioner till the date Section 7 of the O.R.V. Act was amended in the year 1991, no suitable candidates were found to be recruited against the posts which were reserved for the SC & ST Community. At the relevant point of time, it was permissible under Section 7 to de-reserve such posts, however, the authorities, for the reasons best known to them, never took any steps to de-reserve such posts or to absorb the Petitioner against such posts. On the contrary, the Petitioner was allowed to continue in service for several decades and till his retirement from service. 18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to Section 7 of the O.R.V. Act, 1975 submitted that prior to the amendment to Section 7 vide Odisha Act, 11 of 1992 which was notified in the Gazette on 12.12.1992, it was permissible to de- reserve the posts if no suitable candidates were found for being Page 12 of 25 appointed against such posts. In fact, in the present case, since no suitable candidates in respect of the reserve posts of Pharmacist were found, the Petitioner and similarly situated two other persons were appointed against such posts to meet the administrative exigencies and keeping in view the larger public interest. Therefore, at the relevant point of time the Opposite Parties could have taken steps to de-reserve the posts and to absorb the similarly situated two other persons along with the Petitioner or to regularise them against such posts which they were holding, despite the said posts belonging to the reserve category. 19. Unfortunately, no such steps were taken till Section 7 was amended by Odisha Act, 11 of 1992 vide notification dated 12.12.1992. It is pertinent to mention here that even in the amended provision there is a provision to de-reserve the post, however, the operation of the same has been excluded, so far as the Class-III & Class-IV posts are concerned. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the Petitioner emphatically argued that being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties to take steps under the provision of Section 7 of O.R.V. Act, 1975, the Petitioners have been seriously prejudiced. Page 13 of 25 The prejudice is to such an extent that after working for 37 years continuously on adhoc basis and while performing duties as is being done by their counterparts in the regular establishment, he could not be regularized in service. 20. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar and others reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 214, Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (14) SCC 65 and the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka –v.- Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. He also referred to the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India & others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Sripal and another V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad decided on 31st January, 2025 in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024 with regard to regularization of service of employees who have been working continuously for several years. 21. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kamala Panda v. State of Odisha & Others in W.P.(C) No.32104 of 2023, disposed of vide order dated 18.04.2024. By referring to the case Page 14 of 25 of Kamala Panda (supra), learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the facts involved in the said case are almost identical to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. In the case of Kamala Panda (supra), the husband of the Petitioner, who was appointed as Ayurvedic Compounder/Pharmacist along with the Petitioner on 08.05.1987 and consequently joined on 13.05.1987, approached this Court for grant of pensionary benefits after the death of her husband. The learned Coordinate Bench after taking note of the factual background of the case, further considering the long and uninterrupted service rendered by the husband of the Petitioner, further taking note of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of service of adhoc employees, quashed the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 and a further direction was given to the Opposite Party No.2 to absorb the deceased-employee in the regular establishment in the post which he was holding by creating a supernumerary post. 22. Furthermore, keeping in view the facts that the deceased- government employee was no more, a direction was given to pay the family pension to the Petitioner from the date of her entitlement. The aforesaid judgment in Kamala Panda’s case Page 15 of 25 (supra), was assailed by the State-Opposite Parties by filing a writ appeal bearing W.A. No.1790 of 2024 before a Division Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Para-11 of the judgment has categorically held that the bench did not find any infirmity in the ultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge Bench in Kamala Panda’s case (supra). Further, in Para-13 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the Opposite Parties were directed to calculate the qualified period of service w.e.f. 13.05.1987, i.e. initial date of joining of the Respondent in that case in service and it was directed to take into consideration the entire period of service of the deceased-husband of the Respondent by calculating the qualifying period of service for calculation of the family pension. 23. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, while supporting the impugned rejection order dated 14.03.2024 under Annexure-5, contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. While supporting the impugned rejection order dated 14.03.2024, learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Parties while taking a decision pursuant to the order passed by this Court Page 16 of 25 in W.P.(C) No.8849 of 2023, passed a speaking and reasoned order and giving the justification in support of such decision. As such, learned counsel for the State contended that the grounds given in the rejection order dated 14.03.2024 are all legally valid grounds. Therefore, the ultimate decision to reject the prayer of the Petitioner was based on legally sound grounds. 24. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State further submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed on adhoc basis against a reserved category post. He further submitted that the appointment letter issued in favour of the Petitioner clearly reveals that such appointment is temporary and on adhoc basis till such vacancies are filled up by the candidates belonging to the reserved category or such posts are de-reserved in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid condition mentioned in the appointment letter, no vested right is conferred on the Petitioner to claim regularization of his service. He further submitted that although no suitable candidates belonging to the reserved category were found and the Petitioner was allowed to continue. 25. Learned counsel for the State further contended that, in the meantime Section 7 of the O.R.V. Act, 1975 has been Page 17 of 25 amended by Odisha Act 11 of 1992. Thereafter, the legal position has changed. In view of such changed legal scenario, it was not possible on the part of the Opposite Parties to de-reserve the post or to either absorb or regularize the Petitioner against the post in which he was initially engaged on adhoc basis. Moreover, the learned counsel for the State contended that in the absence of any sanctioned post in UR Category, the service of the Petitioner and similarly situated two other persons could not have been regularized by the Opposite Parties. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the prayer made by the Petitioner for regularization of his service or absorption of the Petitioner against the post in which he was appointed on adhoc basis is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the writ petitioner is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 26. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of the pleadings of the respective parties, further taking note of the documents relied upon by both sides, this Court observes that the issue involved in the present writ petition is with regard to the fact that as to whether the service of the Petitioner should have been regularized by the Opposite Parties and accordingly the Page 18 of 25 Petitioner should have been extended with the consequential service and financial benefit? To adjudicate the aforesaid issue, this Court is required to first examine the factual background of the present case. On a careful analysis of the facts presented by both sides, further taking note of the arguments from both sides, it appears that there is no substantial variation in the stand of both sides with regard to the factual position of the present case. 27. Both sides have not disputed the facts that the Petitioner was initially engaged by order dated 08.05.1987 under Annexure- 1 issued under the signature of the Director of Indian Medicine & Homoeopathy, Odisha under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Further, such appointment was against the post which was reserved for SC & ST Category and that the appointment of the Petitioner was on temporary and adhoc basis and subject to the terms and conditions as indicated in the given letter of appointment. It is also not disputed that at the relevant point of time there were 06 vacancies in the post of Pharmacist/Ayurvedic Compounder out of which 03 posts were reserved for SC & ST Category and 03 posts belong to the UR Category. Although appointments were made against UR Category posts, however, due to non-availability of SC & ST candidates the Petitioner was Page 19 of 25 engaged against the reserved post on being selected by the Opposite Parties by following due selection procedure. Therefore, it cannot be said that his initial entry into the service is either illegal or irregular. 28. The only issue that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the Petitioner, who was admittedly engaged against a reserved vacancy post, was illegally appointed and that such appointment could not have been regularized subsequently in view of the provision contained in the O.R.V. Act, 1975? Indisputably, the Petitioner was appointed by following a due selection procedure as against reserved category post on adhoc basis. Such appointment was subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall continue till suitable candidates from the reserved category are recruited to such posts or till the posts are de-reserved in accordance with law. Out of the two contingencies, one of the scenarios arose, i.e. no suitable candidates belonging to the reserved category were found till Odisha Act, 11 of 1992 came into force. Therefore, the Petitioner along with two other similarly situated persons were allowed to continue against such posts. Page 20 of 25 29. Moreover, the unamended provision of Section 7 provided for de-reservation of the reserved posts in the event candidates are not available for recruitment against such posts. Since no suitable candidates were available for appointment to the posts of Pharmacist belonging to the reserved category, the Opposite Parties should have taken immediate steps for de-reservation under the unamended Section 7. However, no such steps were taken. In the meantime Section 7 of the O.R.V. Act, 1975 got amended by virtue of Odisha Act, 11 of 1992. By virtue of the amendment a clear embargo was imposed with regard to de- reservation of such posts. As such, with effect from the date of notification of the Odisha Act, 11 of 1992, i.e. from 12.12.1992, the said posts could not have been de-reserved and the Petitioner and two other similarly situated persons could not have been absorbed against such posts. At this juncture, this Court observes that due to inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the service of the Petitioner could not be initially regularized by de-reserving the posts. 30. It further appears that the Opposite Parties missed the opportunity to regularize the service of the Petitioner at the first instance, i.e. before the O.R.V. Act, 1975 was amended. Page 21 of 25 Although, the Petitioner and two other similarly situated persons were allowed to continue in service on regular basis and they were treated at par with other regular employees appointed against sanctioned vacant posts by extending similar service & financial benefits, however, the Government did not take any steps to regularize their services. A scrutiny of the record further reveals that several recommendations were made initially by the Opposite Party No.2 starting from the year 2004 till 2012 and such fact is evident from the series of letters under Annexure-3 series to the writ application. However, no steps whatsoever were taken to regularize the service of the Petitioner. Eventually, when the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties by filing the representation in the year 2021, initially no action was taken. However, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 31.03.2023 the representation was disposed of by saying that the Petitioner has no right to claim for regularisation of his service or absorption against any sanctioned vacant posts since his initial appointment was on adhoc basis. 31. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the State was directed to produce the details of vacancy position at the relevant time. A copy of the instruction in that regard produced in Court Page 22 of 25 today reveals that as on 01.04.2025 there are total 24 vacancies in the post of Pharmacist and Compounder in Government Ayurvedic Medical College in the State, out of which 10 are for U.R. Category and the balance 14 belong to the reserved category. With regard to the vacancy position, this Court also verified from the counter affidavit that nowhere the State- Opposite Parties have denied the availability of sanctioned posts of Pharmacist and Compounder at any point of time after the law was amended in the year 1992. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the Opposite Parties committed a gross illegality by keeping the Petitioner awaiting for such a long time for his service to be regularized against sanctioned vacant posts. 32. Additionally, while taking note of the number of years the Petitioner has rendered his service, i.e. almost for 37 years uninterruptedly, this Court is of the view that not regularizing the service of the Petitioner would be an injustice of the highest order. Moreover, it shocks the judicial conscience of the Court that even after serving for 37 long years against a regular vacant reserved category post, the Petitioner was never considered for regularization of his service by the Government. In such factual Page 23 of 25 background, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that such treatment of the Petitioner can very well be said exploitation of the service of the Petitioner by State Authorities which is prohibited under the constitutional scheme adopted by this nation. 33. In the aforesaid context, this Court would also like to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) and Sripal (supra). In the above noted two judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rightly warned against the unfair practice of the State Authorities engaging DLP/ NMR employees for several years for a paltry sum without regularizing their services. In the ultimate analysis, this Court is of the view that the present matter falls squarely within the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted two judgments. 34. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position as well as the position of law with regard to regularization of service of adhoc employees, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned order of rejection dated 14.03.2024 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to regularize the service of the Petitioner with effect from his initial date of Page 24 of 25 joining, i.e. 16.05.1987. It is further directed that after treating the Petitioner as a regular Pharmacist/ Compounder the Petitioner shall be extended with all consequential service and financial benefits including the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the employees who are discharging such duties against sanctioned posts. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months. 35. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th May, 2025/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-May-2025 09:19:56 Page 25 of 25