Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12456 of 2025 Nilakantha Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Lalatendu Samal -versus- State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties Mr. Samaresh Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 05.05.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that your lordships' would be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition and after hearing the counsels from both the sides issue Writ / Writs in the nature of Mandamus by directing the Opp. Party No-1 & 2 for regularization of the petitioner in service forthwith as a Khalasi as the petitioner has already rendered for more than 34 years of Page 2 of 3. continuous service in NMR as well as Work Charged services as a Khalasi so also the Opp. Party No-2 has already recommended the name of the three petitioner along with three others to the Opp. Party No-1 vide letter dated. 24.01.2025 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition for their regularization in service; AND/OR pass such other order/ orders deemed fit and proper,” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that a proposal has already been given to the government to bring over Work Charged Khalasi to regular establishment vide letter dated 24.01.2025 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is limited to the extent that despite such proposal be submitted before the government, no decision has been taken in the meantime by the Opposite Party No.1. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, on perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the issue is pending before the Opposite Party No.1. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event no decision has been taken pursuant to the letter under Annexure-3, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy today’s order. Page 3 of 3. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on the proposal submitted by the Petitioner under Annexur-3 to the writ petition within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout