IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.18682 of 2026 Sasmita Pradhan …. Petitioner Ms. P. Rath, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. J. Mohanty, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 02.07.2026 1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. At the outset, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. J. Mohanty, learned counsel contended that prayer No.2 so made in the Writ Petition be treated as not pressed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: WHEREFORE, in light of the above facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ /order/directions: 1 That the Opposite Parties may regularize the services of the Petitioner as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery in the Odisha Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Female) Cadre as a one-time measure as per Rule 4 of the Odisha Multipurpose Health Worker (Female) Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2019; p. 2 p. 2 2 That the Impugned Letters dated 20.03.2019 and 30.02.2019 issued by the Opposite Party No. 1 be quashed in so far as it discriminates and excludes the Petitioner who is working in the Mobile Health Unit; and 3. Pass any such order as it may deem fit; in the interest of justice and equiry. 5. It is contended that similar claim, so far as regularisation of the Petitioner is concerned, has already been allowed by this Court in its order dt.26.04.2024 in W.P.(C ) No.35563 of 2020 and batch, further confirmed by this Court vide its order dt.07.05.2026 in Writ Appeal No.9 of 2025 and batch. However, on the face of such order passed by this Court, Petitioner’s claim for regularisation is yet to be considered. Accordingly, it is contended that Opp. Party No.1 be directed to regularise the services of the Petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand contended that since claiming the benefit of regularisation, Petitioner has not yet made any grievance before the competent authority, the Writ Petition at its present stage is not entertainable. 7. Taking into account the submission of the learned State Counsel, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner may be permitted to move Opp. Party No.1 for consideration of her claim for regularisation and in such eventuality, Opp. Party No.1 be directed to take a decision on the same. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing p. 3 p. 3 the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to move Opp. party No.1 for consideration of her grievance, so far as regularisation is concerned. 8.1. It is observed that if any such application is filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 be communicated to the Petitioner. 8.2. It is further observed that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the order passed by this Court in its judgment dt. 26.04.2024 in W.P.(C ) No.35563 of 2020 and order dt.07.05.026 in Writ Appeal No.9 of 2025, be taken into consideration, if the same is applicable to the Petitioner’s claim. 9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita