Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.

… Opposite Parties Mr.Satya Brata Mohanty, AGA for O.P.1 Mr.Deepankar Varadwaj, Advocate for O.Ps.2 & 3 CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER 26.09.2025 The Petitioner has aired his grievance, as is emerging from the text of prayer column of the petition, which reads as under:-

In this circumstances it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue Notice to the Op. Parties as to why this case shall not be allowed and Op.No-3 shall not be directed for regularization service of the petitioner in the post of "Jr. Assistant" From the date of initial Appointment i.e.14.11.1990 before the Op. Parties by quashing Annexure-11.......

The short and sweet of the petition is that the date of regularization of petitioner should be with effect from

14.11.1990 when he gained entry in service, may be on daily wage basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that several persons were engaged vide order dated 14.11.1990, as would be evident from Annexure-2 wherein, the name of his client figures at Sl. No.20; 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

21.05.2021 as the date of regularization when it ought to have

14.11.1990. Counsel draws attention of the Court to petitioner’s earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No.5151 of 2023 disposed off on 12.01.2023 and opposite party no.3 to allow the service benefit and financial benefit from the year 1990 by fixing grade pay and all other consequential service benefit as per CONTC Nos.2902 & 2937 of 2012 order passed on 17.07.2023 by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court.

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 of regularization on 12.01.2023, his first approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.515 of 2023, which was disposed off on

12.01.2023 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 12.01.2023 with effect from

21.05.2021.

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 14.11.1990 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 14.11.1990 on the principle of parity and equality, which Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India enshrine.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in drawing the attention of Court to the order dated 12.01.2023 passed in his earlier W.P.(C) No.515 of 2023 wherein he was permitted to give a representation coupled with a direction to University consideration. The University instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of 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 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

22.06.2023 under Annexure-11 to the extent it fixes petitioner’s effective date of regularization as 21.05.2021 coupled with a direction to fix “14.11.1990” as the date of his regularization. Further, the petitioner shall be given notional benefit of retrospective regularization till 21.05.2021 and the monetary benefits only with effect from 21.05.2021 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 the order to be acted upon by all concerned. Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 29-Sep-2025 16:33:03 (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge