Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 7553 of 2026 Prasanta Kumar Dehury ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.03.2026 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ(s) quashing the impugned Office Order under File No. F.E- II-3/2020 dtd. 12.02.2020 (Annexure-5); ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to regularize the services of the petitioner against the vacant post of Driver in District Excise Office, Deogarh with effect from the date of regularization of similarly situated employee; iii) Direct grant of all consequential service benefits including pay fixation under Level-4 of Pay Matrix under ORSP Rules, 2017; Page 2 of 3. iv) Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice. AND FOR THIS ACT OF YOUR KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.” 4. It is contended that even though Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dtd.12.02.2020 under Annexure-5, but taking into account the subsequent developments which have taken place and the benefits extended in favour of similarly situated employees pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Annexure-6 & 7 series, the impugned order so passed in case of the Petitioner needs a reconsideration. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No. 2 be directed to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim, taking into account the subsequent developments which have taken place. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since Petitioner claiming the benefit taking into account any development, has not yet made any application before Opp. Party No. 2, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and the fact that subsequent to passing of the impugned order on 12.02.2020 under Annexure-5, similarly situated persons have got the benefit pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Annexure-6 & 7 series, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to make a fresh application before Opp. Party No. 2 for reconsideration of his claim so rejected vide order dtd.12.02.2020. 6.1. It is observed that if any such application is moved before Opp. Party No. 2 within a period of three (3) weeks hence, the said Opp. Page 3 of 3. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Subrat