Orissa High Court
WP(C)/106/2026 of DEBASISH NAYAK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 6 January 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 106 of 2026 Debasish Nayak …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv._ Mr. Debraj Mohanty, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 106 of 2026
Debasish Nayak
….
Petitioner
Represented by Adv.–
Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Another
….
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv._
Mr. Debraj Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
3
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
06.01.2026 (Hybrid mode)
01.
1. The petitioner after retiring from the post of President, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Cuttack w.e.f. 16th January, 2025 upon attaining the age of 65 years. By filing the petition, the petitioner seeks reengagement ‘in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 21st May, 2025 (Annexure-3)’. Relevant paragraphs relied upon in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao & Others v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Others: 2025 INSC 752 (Civil Appeal No.9982 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.25612 of 2023) are reproduced herein:-
3. Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions who have been appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I (supra) They shall be allowed to complete their tenure in entirety. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of the recruitment process under the new Rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue till the completion of the said recruitment process
4. Presidents of the State and District Commissions, and the Judicial Members of the State Commission, in other States, with/without having given the written examination followed by a viva voce.
(a) Those who are appointed and serving shall be allowed to complete their tenure in entirety. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of the recruitment process under the new rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until the completion of the said recruitment process.
(b) Those who have been selected, but not appointed, on account of their concerned States having stayed the appointment process during the pendency of these appeals, shall be appointed to the respective post, and shall be allowed to continue in office till the entirety of their tenure.
2. The learned Additional Government Advocate refers to the page-109 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is reproduced herein:-
“We make it clear that for all those appointments which have been allowed to continue vide this Judgment, the tenure shall be a period of 4 years. Such persons shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of this Judgment qua a five-year tenure, subject to the directions issued hereinabove. We also make it clear that this Judgment shall apply prospectively, except to the extent indicated in the directions hereinabove.”
3. In our considered view, the persons who have retired upon attaining age of superannuation/completed their term before the pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court, cannot be directed by us to be covered by the column - para-3 & 4 of the directions at paragraph 102 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks withdrawal of this Writ Petition, and files memo of dated indicating the same.
5. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of.
The petitioner if so advised, may pursue any remedy available under law.
It is further certified that we have not expressed any opinion regarding claims of the petitioner made in the writ petition.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Narayan/Ranjeeta Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-Jan-2026 16:42:30 Signature Not Verified