Judgment · High Court

Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ORDER 13.08.2026 (Hybrid Mode) Order No. 01.

#1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

#2. The petitioner before this Court has retired attaining age of superannuation while working as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) on contractual basis after rendering service for a considerable length. It is submitted that the employees similar to that of the petitioner have been bestowed with the benefit of regularization pursuant to the direction of this Court in WPC (OAC) No.344 of 2017. The petitioner has rendered continuous service for about 16 years in different projects such as Leprosy Eradication Project, thereafter as a Multipurpose Health worker. His appointment order dated 31.10.2007 issued by the Director of Health Services, Orissa, has been annexed to the writ application marked as Annexure-1.

#3. It is submitted that the OA filed by an employee was transferred to the High Court upon abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, the said OA was renumbered as WPC (OAC) No.344 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated

24.08.2022. Against the order of the Single Judge, the opposite parties preferred writ appeal being W.A. No.2299 of 2023. The writ appeal was dismissed by order dated 08.11.2023 of the Division Bench confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Then SLP was preferred by the opposite parties in SLP (Civil) No.9681 of 2025, which was dismissed by order dated 04.04.2025 confirming the order passed by this Court in the writ appeal. It is further submitted that Review Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).42782 of 2025 was filed by the opposite party-State for review of the order dated 04.04.2025 dismissing the SLP. The Review Petition has been dismissed by order dated 06.11.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

#4. It is submitted that the petitioner being similarly situated should be extended the benefit of regularization after working for more than 16 years. The petitioner has filed representation before the authority, copy of which is annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure-7 dated 26.04.2026.

#5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon instruction that the petitioner seeks direction from this Court directing the authority to consider and dispose of the representation dated

26.04.2026 (Annexure-7).

#6. In view of the limited nature of prayer, this Court is not seeking respond from the opposite parties regarding the contentions of the petitioner.

#7. It is submitted by the learned ASC that the authority shall consider the representation made by the Petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate order within a reasonable time.

#8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties, it is directed that the authority shall do well to consider representation dated

26.04.2026 and take a decision on the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order along with copy of the representation(s) earlier made and all such documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner. The decision that would be taken by the authority shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks after such decision. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the claim of the petitioner or the contentions of the parties.

#9. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Radha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Aug-2026 17:03:20