Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 7015 of 2026 Ramesh Chandra Nayak ..... Petitioner Mr. D. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 06.04.2026 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dtd.12.03.2026, an additional affidavit is filed in Court with service of copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The same be kept in record. 3. Basing on the instruction it is contended that though no initial order of engagement is available with the Petitioner, but in the proposal submitted for regularization of the Petitioner and similarly situated employees, initial date of engagement of the Petitioner as NMR has been reflected as 01.03.1988 under Annexure-12 and in the said proposal, Petitioner’s name finds placed at Sl. No. 8. 4. Heard Mr. D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 5. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be Page 2 of 2. graciously pleased to issue a 'Rule-Nisi' calling upon the Opposite Parties to show-cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs shall not be issued to remove discrimination to the petitioner by regularizing the Petitioner in services especially when a host of similarly situated persons had already been regularized by quashing the impugned order dated 30.7.2024 under Annexure-5 Series with all the consequential service and financial benefits within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in view of Annexure 11. And if the Opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said rule absolute. And Pass such other order/orders and/or writ/writs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. And for this act of your kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 6. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No. 1 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period of three (3) weeks hence. 6.1. It is observed that if such representation is filed within the aforesaid time period, Opp. Party No. 1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 be communicated to the Petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha