Pramod Kumar Padhi v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WPC(OA) No. 3489 of 2013 Pramod Kumar Padhi ....

Petitioner None -versusState of Odisha & others ....

Opp. Parties Mr. T.K. Praharaj, Standing Counsel

CORAM:

JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Order No.

ORDER

19.04.2022 03.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

RJ 2.

None appears for the petitioner, when the matter is called. None had appeared for the petitioner, when the matter was taken up on 04.03.2022 and 29.03.3022. 3.

On 04.03.2022, the following order was passed:- "None appears for the petitioner.

The writ petition has been registered before this Court on 12th August, 2021, after the original application was transferred from the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar upon its abolition.

On perusal of the available order sheets of the learned Tribunal, it is indicated that the matter was never taken up after 14.02.2019.

The original application was filed in the year 2013 by the applicant who was then 46 years of age, working as Work-charged Boring Mate in the office of the Executive Engineer, RWS & S Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khordha challenging the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S Circle, Bhubaneswar (opposite party no.5) rejecting the claim of the petitioner/applicant to be regularized as a Boring Mate. The further prayer made in the original application is to direct the Chief

// 2 // Engineer, RWS & S, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (opposite party no.3) to consider the appeal dated 16.04.2012 filed against the order of rejection dated 25.01.2012.

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that a counter has been filed denying all the allegations made in the original application and due to long lapse of time, nothing would survive for adjudication in the present writ petition. To grant another opportunity to the petitioner, list on 29th March, 2022."

4.

Again on 29.03.2022, when the matter was listed, to grant another opportunity to the petitioner, the matter was adjourned.

5.

Learned Standing Counsel again reiterates the submissions on behalf of the opposite party-State as noted in the orders dated 04.03.2022 and 29.03.2022. 6.

Having heard learned Standing Counsel of the opposite parties-State, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of the petitioner. (M.S. Sahoo) Judge