IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6646 of 2026 Kasi Prasad Nayak & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 05.03.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above noted facts and circumstances stated herein above, the Petitioner most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this case, call for the relevant records & after being heard from both the sides, to allow this writ petition to the extent that; i) To quash the order dt. 04.09.2024 under Annexure-9, order dt.05.01.2026 under Annexure-11 & online letter dt. 16.02.2026 under Annexure-13 with regard to disengagement of petitioners service w.e.f. 31.03.2026 which is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, without due application of mind and also contravention of rules & contrary to Government clarification dated 28.03.2025; ii) Further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the dissolution of the Special Development Councils does not ipso facto result in termination of the Petitioners, in view of the Government decision dated 15.12.2020 and clarification dated 28.03.2025; iii) To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 0pp. Parties to allow the Petitioners to continue in their respective posts as District Programme Coordinators under the Special Development Councils in the respective districts of Odisha; iv) Further this Hon'ble court held that the continuous engagement of the Petitioner on contractual basis for more than 05 years against a perennial and sanctioned post, which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; p. 2 p. 2 v) Further be pleased to pass necessary order/orders/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.”. 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioners states that highlighting their grievance, Petitioners have made a representation to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-12 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-12 within a period of three (3) months in accordance with law from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. However, considering the fact that Petitioners are apprehending disengagement w.e.f.31.03.2026 basing on the impugned letter issued on 05.01.2026 under Annexure-11, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the claim made by the Petitioners under Annexure-12 prior to 31.03.2026. 6.1. It is further observed that while taking such a decision, recommendation available under Annexure-13 be taken into consideration. Petitioners are permitted to provide a copy of this order before Opposite Party No.1 along with Annexure-13 for compliance. 6.2. However, it is observed that henceforth no joint Writ Petition will be entertained. p. 3 p. 3 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat