Bibhuti Bhusan Rath vs State Of Odisha & Another on 10 September, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Bibhuti Bhusan Rath vs State Of Odisha & Another on 10 September, 2025

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                 W.A. No. 3287 of 2024

An Appeal under Clause-10 of the Letter Patent of Patna
High Court read with Article-4 of Orissa High Court
Rules, 1948.

     Bibhuti Bhusan Rath                 :::    Appellant
                          -: VERSUS :-
     State of Odisha & Another           :::    Respondents


Advocates appeared in this case:-

For the Appellant          ::   Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty,
                                Advocate

For the Respondents        ::   Mr. Prem Kumar Mohanty,
                                Addl. Standing Counsel.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
                            AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
                         JUDGMENT

DECIDED ON 10.09.2025 PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO,J.

1. The appellant challenges the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3447 of 2020.

Learned counsel for the appellant was heard in extenso. In the Writ Petition was filed by the appellant- petitioner who was working as Data Entry Operator in Page 1 of 7 the establishment of respondent no.2-Commissioner- cum-Commercial Taxes. The following prayer was sought for: -

"It is prayed therefore that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why a direction shall not be issued to regularize the services of the petitioner as Data Entry Operator with effect from 10.07.2015 as per the order of the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 09.01.2018 and 09.07.2019 passed in C.P. No.244(C) of 2018 along with the order dated 07.02.2019 under Annexure -4 and after hearing the parties Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the opp. party no.2 to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 10.07.2015 with all service benefits including salary; within a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

And such other orders/directions be passed as deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."

2. Prior to filing of the Writ Petition, an O.A. No.1616(C) of 2016 was filed by the petitioner before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) decided on 09.01.2018. Thereafter, another O.A. No.2479(C) of 2010 was filed by the petitioner also on the self-same issues seeking direction to get appointment/regularised.

3. Prior to filing of the above two original applications, the learned Tribunal had disposed of a batch of cases in O.A. No.2172(C) of 2015 by order dated 17.05.2017, on being challenged that was not interfered with by this Page 2 of 7 Court in W.P.(C) No. 6661 of 2008 disposed of by judgment dated 10.05.2018. Further the judgment of this Court dated 10.05.2018 was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.18642 of 2018 that was dismissed by order dated 06.08.2018.

Concededly, the order passed in the OAs filed by the appellant, i.e., O.A. No. 1616(C) of 2016 dated 09.01.2018 and the order passed in O.A. No. 2479(C) of 2010 dated 25.07.2014 have attained finality as they have not been challenged and also have been implemented.

4. Paragraph-9 i.e. operative portion of order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. 2479 of 2010 is reproduced herein:

"As discussed above, since persons junior to the applicant have been appointed, the respondent cannot deny appointment to the applicant only on the ground of over-age. When he has duly been selected, he is entitled to be appointed against the post DEO on contractual basis. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and the respondent is directed to consider appointment of the applicant as D.E.O. on contractual basis condoning the age as has been done in the case of Dibakar Sahu and Alaka Roy and his seniority should be counted from the said date when Alaka Roy was appointed. However, he will not be entitled to for financial benefit from that date but from the date of his actual appointment. Appropriate orders in this regard be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

Pursuant to the above order dated 25.07.2014 of the learned Tribunal, appointment order was issued (copy available in the Writ Petition) dated 16.04.2015.

Page 3 of 7

Portion of the office letter relevant for adjudication of the matter is reproduced herein: -

"In pursuance to Government in Finance Department Letter No. FIN-CT2-ESTT-0042-2013-11302/F, dt. 06.04.2015, Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Rath, S/o Trilochan Rath, At- Debottar Colony, P.S./Dist.- Nayagarh is hereby appointed provisionally as a Data Entry Operator on contractual basis against a vacant post condoning the overage as per the order dated 25.07.2014 of Hon'ble OAT, Cuttack with consolidated remuneration of Rs.5,200/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Two Hundred) only per month and posted as such in the O/o the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cuttack-I Range, Cuttack subject to the following conditions:

1. The seniority of Sri B.B. Rath will be counted from the date Smt. Alaka Ray joined in the post of DEO.

2. He will not be entitled for financial benefit from that date but from the actual date of his joining in the post."

5. By order dated 12.02.2019 issued by the Commissionerate of CT and GST, Odisha (At Cuttack) (Finance Department, Government of Odisha) formal order for regularization of contractual Data Entry Operators working under Commissionerate of CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack was issued. Copy of the said order available in the Writ Petition marked as Annexure-5, at Sl. No. 36 and name of Ms. Alaka Ray is mentioned which is reproduced herein:-

Sl. Name of the Office in which Date of Date of Remarks No. Junior presently contractual Regularisation Programmer working engagement xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

36. Alaka Ray Commissionerate 10.07.2009 10.07.2015 of CT & GST, Odisha xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Page 4 of 7 In the said order at "N.B.(2)", the following has been indicated :-

"xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx N.B.(2):- Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Rath joined as Data Entry Operator on contractual basis on 24.04.2015 as per the direction of Govt. in F.D. vide letter no.11302 Dated 6.04.2015 in pursuance of the order dated 25.07.2014 of the Hon'ble Tribunal passed in O.A. No.2479(C)/2010. His contractual service will be regularized after completion of 6(six) years.

After his regularization, his seniority will be fixed, in the gradation list of regular DEOs, as per the order dated 25.07.2014 of the Hon'ble Tribunal passed in O.A. No.2479(C)/2010."

6. It is also fairly stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that during pendency of the Writ Petition before the Single Judge, out of which the present Writ Appeal arises, the appellant has been given seniority ahead of Ms. Alaka Ray.

7. The operative portion of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition at paragraphs 13 & 14 are reproduced herein:-

"13. In light of the explicit provisions set forth in the governing rules and supported by established judicial precedents, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner's request for retrospective regularization from 2015. The key determinant remains the petitioner's original date of contractual appointment, with regularization being permissible only upon the completion of the required six-year term. Granting such a request would contradict the Page 5 of 7 regulatory framework and confer an unwarranted retrospective benefit. Such an order would undermine the purpose of the regulation by disrupting the seniority order that has been carefully maintained for regular appointees and set a precedent that deviates from the structured conditions established for regularization.

14. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition, lacking in merit, is accordingly, liable to be dismissed."

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, having gone through the records the judgment of the learned Single Judge we do not find any infirmity as the said judgment is based on proper appreciation of materials on record and application of relevant correct propositions of law.

9. We find that the appellant has not challenged any of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal in the OAs he had filed, i.e., the order dated 09.01.2018 in O.A. No.1616(C) of 2016 and O.A. No.2479(C) of 2010 disposed of by the order dated 25.07.2014. Those orders have enured to the benefit of the appellant. It is clear that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.2479(C) of 2010 was complied with by the State. The appellant has got employment as Data Entry Operator on contractual basis. On the basis of the prevailing rules after six years of engagement, his service metamorphosed into regular service. During pendency of the writ petition, the appellant was also given seniority ahead of Miss Alaka Ray which even was not directed by the Tribunal.

Page 6 of 7

Having not challenged both the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal in the applications filed by the appellant, it would be too late in the day for the appellant now to take a different stand to turn around and seek a different relief. Apart from the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge, we add further reasons for not entertaining the appeal.

10. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Costs reluctantly made easy.

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge.

Narayan/Ranjeeta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJEETA SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 13-Sep-2025 11:29:26 Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court