IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22427 of 2025 Manmath Kumar Das …. Petitioner Mr.Kkunal Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr.J.K. Ray, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER 12.08.2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner has a grievance in relation to regularization of his service and he has scripted in his prayer as under:- “a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties to antedate the date of regularization of the services of the petitioner as Level-V (A) Assistant Teacher with effect from the date he completed six years of service i.e., from 2014 instead of 2017 keeping in view the decision of this Hon’ble Court rendered in the case of Dhananjaya Charan Dey and others –V- State of Orissa and others; reported in 2020 (II) ILR-CUT-84, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.A. No.10 of 2021 disposed of on 2.2.2021 and also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha and others –V- Dhananjaya Charan Dey and others (S.L.P. (C) No.13627 of 2021 disposed of on 25.01.2023) with all consequential service and financial benefits till he reached the age of superannuation i.e,. 31.03.2023, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; Xx xx xx” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has already given a representation dated 5.5.2025, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-4 citing the decision of this Court in Dhananjaya Charan Dey –V- State of Orissa; reported in 2020 (II) ILR-CUT-84, which has remained unconsidered for an indefinite period of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Article-300 of Order No. 01 the Constitution, there is duty casts on the public authority to grant redressal of the grievances raised in the representation of the kind. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the answering opposite parties although initially resisted the petition, now graciously agrees to instruct his jurisdictional official client to look into the grievance of the petitioner in a time bound way and in accordance with law keeping the aforesaid decision in view. This is appreciable. In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed off. Time for consideration of the representation and to inform result of such consideration to the petitioner is eight (8) weeks. All contentions of the parties are kept open. It hardly needs to be stated that the subject representation to be considered in the light of Dhananjaya Charan Dey case and other norms, if any. It is open to solicit any information or direction from the side of the petitioner, as are guided for due consideration of the subject representation; however, in that guise delay shall not be brooked. Now, no costs. Web copy of this order be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Basu Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY