Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10940 of 2026 Amiya Kumar Sahu ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Soubhagya Chandra Dev Dash -versus- State Of Odisha 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: “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued commanding the opposite parties to antedate the date of regularization of services of the petitioner with effect from 22.08.1991 instead of 23.08.1994 as similarly situated Non-Formal Facilitators / Page 2 of 3. Supervisors who were appointed along with the petitioner their services were regularized with effect from 22.08.1991 whereas the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 22.08.1991, with all consequential service and financial benefits, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; (B) And any other order or orders direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction of the Opposite Parties in considering the case of the Petitioner for antedating the date of his regularization in service w.e.f. 22.08.1991 instead of 23.08.1994 as has been allowed by the Opposite Parties. He further contended that although similarly situated persons have been regularized w.e.f. 22.08.1991, however, in the case of the Petitioner the Opposite Parties have not adopted the same procedure. As such, the Petitioner has been discriminated against. He further contended that although ventilating his grievance the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation dated 20.03.2025 at Annexure-4 to the writ petition, however, no final decision has been taken on such representation. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking Page 3 of 3. into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3 who is the competent authority and in the event no final decision has been taken on his representation at Annexure-4, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4, keeping in view the order passed in similarly situated employees within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 7. 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