p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.997 of 2026 Quosain Sultana Siddiqua & others …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 04.05.2026 01. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing of the Office Order dated 26.09.2024. 3. In the writ petition, it is contended that the father of the petitioners late Md. Khalid Siddiquee was employed as a driver in the OSCRT, Sambalpur. Due to the accident caused by him, he was departmentally proceeded and was discharged from the service vide Office Memo dated 29.09.1982. Challenging the aforementioned order of discharge, the father of the petitioners filed O.J.C. No.2513 of 1991. This Court p. 2 disposed of the said writ petition, inter alia, observing that once the Labour Court has confirmed the discharge order, the writ Court has limited jurisdiction to upset the same. Therefore, court did not give any indulgence. However, the Court also observed that the opposite parties may take a sympathetic view, if the petitioners approach in future. 4. The mother of the petitioners has also subsequently filed W.P.(C) No.13786 of 2004 praying for family pension and retiral benefits. This Court, vide order dated 01.03.2005 directed the opposite parties to dispose of the representation given by the mother of the petitioners within a stipulated time frame. The representation was duly considered by the competent authority and it came to be rejected. Similarly, the representation given by the present petitioners on 09.09.2016 to consider for the family pension and retiral benefits has also been turned down on 02.12.2016. 5. In the aforementioned background, the petitioners have now reiterated their grievance by a p. 3 fresh representation which also received the same fate. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. This Court has carefully perused the materials placed on record and various orders passed by the Court on the earlier occasions. This Court, at no point of time, has passed any favourable order in favour of parents of the petitioners in the proceeding initiated by them or in favour of the petitioners except directing the opposite parties to take a sympathetic view to modify the discharge order passed against the father of the petitioners. It is also eminent from the record that more than 36 years back, the father of the petitioners has been discharged. The father of the petitioners unsuccessfully filed the writ petition, similar prayer was made by the mother of the petitioners by filing another petition, which faced the same fate and the present petitioners have approached this Court after more than 36 years for the same relief. This being the third round of litigation within 36 years claiming for p. 4 the same relief in the form of different prayers, this court has no option rather to decline the writ. 7. Since no enforceable right of the petitioners is being violated and the grievance of the petitioners relates back to 36 years, at this belated stage, no order could be passed in accordance with law in favour of the petitioners albeit the Court has all sympathy for them. 8. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Subhasis Designation: Personal Assistant Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.