Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14781 of 2025 Srikanta Mohanty ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – M/s. Sidhartha Das, S.S. Ojha, B. Ray, V.R. Behera -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 08.07.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. On the oral prayer of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the name of the Opposite Party No.4 be deleted from the cause list of the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue notice, hear the parties and upon such hearing be pleased to direct the Opp. Party Page 2 of 3. authorities to Appoint the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Scheme also to disburse all the benefits under the Rehabilitation Scheme and further be pleased to direct the appropriate Authority to regualrise the service of the petitioner against the vacancy of regularised posts to secure the end of justice; And; be further pleased to pass any other order(s)/Direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper.” 5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has approached the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a representation dated 28.05.2018 under Annexure-8 series to the writ petition. She further contended that the representation was forwarded in the year 2023 only. She further submitted that no final decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that he has no specific instruction in the matter. He further submitted that the grievance raised in the present writ petition pertains to the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. Therefore, the State-Opposite Party is not necessary party to the present writ petition. 7. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, further keeping in view the nature of the grievance involved in the present writ Page 3 of 3. petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with supporting documents within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner in terms of the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and keeping in view the vacancy position and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within three months from the date of filing such representation. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis