IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2128 of 2026 Purnachandra Baral …. Petitioner Mr. A. U. Senapati, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department, Odisha 2. Block Development Officer (BDO), Pipili 3. Executive Engineer, RWS Sub-Division, Delanga 4. Sarapanch, Nuasasan Grama Panchyat …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. K. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 29.01.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that his services are being utilized as a Self- Employed Mechanic by the Executive Engineer of RWSS, Delang, Puri and the Petitioner is discharging his function as such in terms of his initial engagement since 2001. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that notwithstanding the renewal of engagement from time to time and during continuance thereof the Opposite Party No.4-Sarpanch has terminated the services of the Petitioner vide order dated 13.11.2023 at Annexute-03. It is submitted by the learned counsel that ex facie the Sarpanch has no jurisdiction to pass such order and drawing the attention of this Court to the recital of the said order, it is submitted by the learned counsel that since ex facie the order is tainted with stigma, the Petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing. 4. On a bare perusal of the order, it is seen that the Petitioner’s services were terminated for alleged unauthorized absence and not discharging his duties diligently, for insubordination and not mending his ways in spite of advice. 5. It is stated that because of exigency, notwithstanding the order at Annexure-3, the Petitioner is continuing to discharge his functions as such, and it is submitted on instruction that since during discharging of his function, the Petitioner, who has not paid his legitimate dues, ventilating his grievance made representations to the authorities including the Collector and the impugned order of termination is out of vindictiveness, on account of the Petitioner fighting for his legitimate dues. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is gross and unexplained delay in approaching the Court. Furthermore, there is no cause of action to maintain the WP(C). 7. Considering the rival submissions and the tenor of the termination order, this Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice would be subserved in the event the Petitioner is permitted to file a representation ventilating his grievances, inter alia, raising the grounds of lack of authority of the Opposite Party No.4 in issuing the termination order dated 13.11.2023 at Annexure-03. 8. Such representation be made to the Opposite Party No.3 within a period of four weeks and the same be submitted along with a copy of this order. In the event the said timeline is adhered to, this Court has no iota of doubt that the Opposite Party No.3 shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible with empathy preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the same, keeping in view the service being rendered by the Petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina