Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3199 (ORI)

MANOJ SWAIN v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/6217/2026 · 2026-03-24

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6217 of 2026 Manoj Swain …. Petitioner Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC COROM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 24.03.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that let this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased consider the facts stated above, call for the records and issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the payment in respect of arrear remuneration shall not be paid to the petitioner. And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said rule may be made absolute against the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties, direction may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay in respect of arrear remuneration, for greater interest of justice and allow the writ petition. And passed such other order(s) / direction (s) as would be deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner state that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.4 vide Annexure-3 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.4 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-3 in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti