Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71058 (ORI)

BIMALA PARICHHA v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/30630/2025 · 2025-10-31

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30630 of 2025 Bimala Parichha & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Mohanty (2), Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC COROM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 31.10.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioners and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to antidate the date of regularization in service of the petitioner w.e.f. 17.02.2020 instead of 29.03.2022 by modifying the order No. 12641 Estt. dated 28.10.2024 of the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Kandhamal under Annexure-10 accordingly, so far as the same relates to the petitioner. And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute. And/or pass any other order/orders this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioners state that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioners have made a representation to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-11 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection. 5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation filed by the petitioners vide Annexure-11 in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti