TAPAS KUMAR BEHERA vs STATE OF ODISHA — WP(C)/9803/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

CNR: ODHC010224892026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP(C)/13271/2026

Filing Date

25-03-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/9803/2026

Registration Date

28-03-2026

Judge

MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

Coram

MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 31 )

Sub-Category

07-AMENDMENT OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES ( 7 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

06th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

TAPAS KUMAR BEHERA

Adv. SIDHESWAR MALLIK,M.MALLIK, S.MALLICK,M.MALLIK, S.MALLICK, M.MALLIK, S.MALLICK

Respondent(s)

STATE OF ODISHA

PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ODISHA

Hearing History

Judge: MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

09-04-2026

FRESH ADMISSION

06-05-2026

FOR ADMISSION

16-04-2026

FRESH ADMISSION

Orders

06-05-2026
MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

The High Court of Orissa quashed the government's rejection order and directed the state to release salary (instead of stipend) to Assistant Conservator of Forests trainees during their 2-year training period, citing the March 2024 amendment to service rules that mandated this benefit. The court found the rejection unjustifiable since similar salary benefits were already extended to Forest Rangers under identical amendments, though implementation remains subject to the Supreme Court's pending appeal decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Orissa quashed the government's rejection order and directed the state to release salary (instead of stipend) to Assistant Conservator of Forests trainees during their 2-year training period, citing the March 2024 amendment to service rules that mandated this benefit. The court found the rejection unjustifiable since similar salary benefits were already extended to Forest Rangers under identical amendments, though implementation remains subject to the Supreme Court's pending appeal decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case