Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10790 of 2026 Braja Kishor Barik ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sevati Soren -versus- State Of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 16.04.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstance narrated above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate calling upon the Opp.partes to show cause as to; i) why the appointment of the petitioner will not be regularized since 08.10.1991 ie the date of approval of the order of the then Inspector of Schools, Cuttack and to get financial benefits arising thereof, and Page 2 of 4. ii) Why the arrear salary for the period from March 1997 till 27.10.2000 with interest @ 12% per annum will not be released in favour of the petitioner. May be pleased to pass such other order (s) as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed as 4th Peon on 26.11.1990 by the Managing Committee of Talabasta High School. On 08.10.1991 the appointment of the Petitioner was approved by the Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 02.09.1992 pursuant to the order passed in OJC No.4752 of 1991. While this was the position, the school where the Petitioner was working was taken over by the Government w.e.f. 07.06.1994. After the school was taken over the Petitioner was not paid his salary. As a result of which, he was compelled to approach the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2224(C) of 1998. The said O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the Inspector of Schools to examine the matter of arrear salary of the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that while this was the position, the Petitioner was adjusted to the 3rd post of Peon as Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper vide office order dated 30.12.2003. Thereafter, the Petitioner again filed a case before the learned OAT, which was registered as O.A. No.2487(C) of 2000. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 08.03.2002 directing the Opposite Parties to adjust the Petitioner against any vacant post of 3rd Peon either in the school in which he was working or in any Page 3 of 4. other school, if required, by creating a post. Since that order was not carried out, the Petitioner was compelled to file contempt application before the learned Tribunal. 6. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although the Petitioner is entitled to be regularized from the date of his initial joining in service or at least from the date his engagement was approved by the Government through the Inspector of Schools, however, the Opposite Parties have regularized the service of the Petitioner only w.e.f. 28.10.2000 vide order dated 30.12.2003. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although the Petitioner has been ventilating his grievance before various authorities including the District Education Officer, Cuttack by filing a detailed representation dated 28.01.2026 at Annexure-6, no final decision has been taken with regard to redressal of the grievance of the present Petitioner. Challenging such inaction of the Opposite Parties in redressing the grievance of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the pleadings of the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto, it appears that the Petitioner has already approached the DEO, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation dated 28.01.2026 at Annexure-6. He further Page 4 of 4. contended that in the event no final decision has been taken on such representation, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of such representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh and better representation before the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of three weeks from today taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In the event any such representation is filed along with a copy of today’s order, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same strictly in accordance with law and the applicable Rules and, dispose of the representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout