Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37362 of 2025 Satyabhama Mahanta ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Chandiprasad Sahani -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 23.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. 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. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “The petitioner therefore humbly prays that your Lordship would graciously be pleased to : (i) Admit the Writ Petition, (ii) Call for the relevant records AND (iii) After hearing the counsels for the parties further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from October, 2017 and grant all consequential service benefits. And any other order/ orders or direction/ Page 2 of 3. directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the Petitioner has filed representation dated 10.01.2025 before the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6, but the same is still pending before the said Opposite Party and the said Opposite Party has not taken any decision as of now. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.1 in not redressed the grievance of the Petitioner that is the regularization of his service, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Balabhadra Majhi -Vs.- State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.15345 of 2022 decided vide judgment dated 11.11.2022 at Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that he has no instruction in the matter. However, in the event the representation of the Petitioner is still pending before the Opposite Party No.1 and no final decision has been taken thereof, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ Page 3 of 3. petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.01.2025 at Annexure-6 by taking into consideration the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Balabhadra Majhi’s case (supra) and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis