Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12012 of 2026 Nilakantha Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Pronoy Mohanty -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 23.04.2026 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: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, in the nature of writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and order/orders, calling upon the Opp. Parties, to show cause as to why the office Order No.6263/dt.24.03.2026 of O.P. No.3 and office Order No.755/dt.02.04.2026 of O.P. No.6 vide Annexures-7 & 8 respectively along with other consequential actions pursuant to the said orders shall not be quashed, in consideration of the representation Page 2 of 4. dt.06.04.2026 of the Petitioner vide Annexure-6; AND If the Opp. Parties fails to show cause and/or show insufficient and/or false cause, make the said Rule Nisi absolute; AND/OR, pass any other order as deemed proper;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner while working as a DPC-SS, Ganjam was instructed to relieve from PUPS, Bhabanipur, Beguniapada, Block-Kodala, Ganjam and to report to the BEO, Satyabadi as he was deployed as Asst. Teacher in Satyabadi Block, Puri vide letter dated 29.07.2022 of the Joint Director, Elementary Education, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Petitioner joined at his new place of posting on 05.08.2022. He further contended that while working as such, the Petitioner’s name was included in the ensuing Census duty. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, further submitted that the Government of Odisha, R&DM Department vide circular dated 02.04.2026 has instructed not to transfer the employees who are engaged in Census duty till the Census operation is over, i.e. by March, 2027. He further contended that contrary to the aforesaid circular of the Government the Petitioner has been again transferred to his parent district, i.e. Ganjam. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the order dated 24.03.2026 at Annexure-7, submitted Page 3 of 4. before this Court that the Opposite Party No.3 without realizing the fact that the Petitioner has been selected for performing the Census duty, has transferred the Petitioner. Such order is in violation of the decision of the Government as has been referred to hereinabove. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner be allowed to continue at his present place of posting till the Census operation is over by March, 2027. He further contended that ventilating his grievance the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation on 06.04.2026 with request to permit him to continue at his present place of posting, i.e. an Asst. Teacher in Bidyadharpur NUPS, Satyabadi Block, Puri. However, no final decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on a careful examination of the pleadings in the writ petition, it appears that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 for redressal of his grievance. He further contended that in the event no final decision has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner dated 06.04.2026, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on such representation within a stipulated period of time. 7. 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.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-10 within a period of eight weeks Page 4 of 4. from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-10 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be also communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. It is further directed that till date no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner. 8. 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