Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 23472 of 2025 Niroj Ansumali Swain ..... Petitioner Mr. J.R. Khuntia, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate (TATA Power) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 23.10.2025 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties more particularly to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post of (Maintenance Work and Revenue Collection) by taking into account his long and continuous service both under Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha (CESU) and Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd. and keeping in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others (S.L.P. (C) No.5580 of 2024 disposed of on 20.12.2024) reported in AIR 2025 SCC 296 and the subsequent judgment in the case of Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 disposed of on 31.01.2025) reported in 2025 SCC Page 2 of 2. Online SC 221 and to grant all consequential service and financial benefits of the petitioner within a stipulated period as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court; (B) And any other or order / orders direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound remain ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though highlighting his grievances, Petitioner has filed a representation at Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition before the Opp. Party No. 2, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that a direction be issued to Opposite Party No. 2 to take a decision on the above noted Petition within a specific time period. 5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs Opposite Party No. 2 to take a decision on the above noted petition in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha