Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 21561 of 2022 Mrutunjaya Mohapatra ..... Petitioner Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 29.01.2026 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Even though the present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim for being brought over to the work charged establishment vide the impugned order dtd.04.07.2022 under Annexure-12, but in course of hearing it is fairly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Patties that Petitioner’s claim so made in his representation under Annexure-9, directed to be considered by this Court in its order dtd.29.09.2021 under Annexure- 10, was made on a wrong notion and with wrong facts. It is accordingly contended that liberty be given to the Petitioner to make a fresh claim before Opp. Party No. 2 for being brought over to the work charged establishment. Page 2 of 2. 3.1. It is further contended that similarly situated employee pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal has been brought over to the work charged establishment. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No. 2 with regard to his claim to be brought over to the work charged establishment. 4.1. It is observed that if any such representation is moved before Opp. Party No. 2 within a period of three (3) weeks hence, the said Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. 4.2. It is further observed that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the benefit extended in favour of the similarly situated employees be taken into consideration. Petitioner is permitted to enclose such order along with his representation before opp. Party No. 2. Opp. Party No. 2 is also directed to take an independent decision without being guided by the earlier rejection made by the Govt. under Annexure-12. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction as well as the liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha