Disposed¶33

Nigamanand Hans v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC30 Jan 2026WP(C)/1166/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of services; W&CD Department; Government policy decision pending; Annexure-5 order dated 12.08.2025 by Principal Secretary; certiorari; mandamus; Letter No.14320/WCD dated 12.07.2023; earlier order dated 01.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2025; fresh application before Opposite Party No.2; lawful decision within three months; no coercive action; State of Odisha; Nigamanand Hans; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application before Opposite Party No.2 (within three weeks); Opposite Party No.2 to take a lawful decision within three months of receipt and communicate it to the petitioner; no coercive action against the petitioner till such decision. ¶33

Nigamanand Hans Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-5) of the Principal Secretary, W&CD Department, declining the petitioner's regularization claim for want of a Government policy decision despite his eligibility, is arbitrary and non-speaking and liable to be quashed by certiorari. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

While disposing of the writ petition, the Court permitted the petitioner to make a fresh application before Opposite Party No.2 for consideration of his grievance relating to the observation in the impugned order that his claim cannot be considered unless a policy decision is taken.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

If such an application is filed within three weeks, Opposite Party No.2 shall take a lawful decision on the same within three months from receipt, and the order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶28

Key takeaways

Till a decision is taken on the petitioner's claim before Opposite Party No.2, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.ratio¶32
The writ petition stood disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions; the impugned order was not quashed and the mandamus sought in terms of Letter No.14320/WCD dated 12.07.2023 was not issued.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.1166 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 30.01.2026) by Nigamanand Hans seeking (i) certiorari to quash the order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-5) of the Principal Secretary, W&CD Department, which declined his regularization claim on the ground that no Government policy decision had been taken despite his eligibility, and (ii) mandamus to finalize regularization as recommended in Letter No.14320/WCD dated 12.07.2023. The Court disposed of the petition, permitting a fresh application before Opposite Party No.2 (to be filed within three weeks), with a direction that a lawful decision be taken within three months of receipt and communicated to the petitioner, and that no coercive action be taken against him until such decision.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C ) No.1166 of 2026

Nigamanand Hans

…. Petitioner

Mr. S. Mohanty, Adv.

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

¶9

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶10

ORDER

¶11

30.01.2026

¶12

W.P.(C ) No.1166 of 2026 & I.A. No.923 of 2026

¶13

Order

¶14

No.

¶15

1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶16

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶17

3. The present writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the flowing prayer:

¶18

“The petitioner, therefore pray that your lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition and after hearing the parties be pleased to

¶19

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Principal Secretary, W&CD Department, as arbitrary, non-speaking, and contrary to the order dated 01.05.2025 of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2025;

¶20

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to finalize the proposal for regularization of the Petitioners' services as recommended in Letter No.14320/WCD dated

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

12.07.2023, within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶23

Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

And for this Act of kindness, the Petitioner shall ever pray.”

¶25

4. It is contended that even though Petitioner is otherwise eligible to get the benefit of regularization, but on the ground that Government has not taken a policy decision as yet, claim of the Petitioner was disposed of vide the impugned order dt.12.08.2025. It is accordingly contended that Government be directed to take a decision with regard to the claim involved in the present Writ Petition in terms of order dt.12.08.2025.

¶26

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since no decision has yet been taken, Petitioner’s claim has been rightly considered and disposed of vide order under Annexure-5.

¶27

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considering the submission made and taking into account the nature of order passed under Annexure-5, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to make a fresh application before Opp. party No.2 for consideration of his grievance with regard to the observation made in the impugned order that unless a policy decision is taken, Petitioner’s claim cannot be considered.

¶28

6.1. It is observed that if such an application is filed within a period of 3(three) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3)

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

// 3 //

¶31

months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶32

6.2. Till a decision is taken on the claim of the Petitioner to be made before Opp. Party No.2, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner.

¶33

6.3. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶34

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶35

Jyoti

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 30-Jan-2026 17:43:06

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Nigamanand Hans v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nigamanand Hans v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santilata Mali Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Dora Vs State of Odisha

Santoshini Dash Vs State of Odisha

Satya Ranjan Das Vs State of Odisha

Rajashri Mishra @ Rajashree Mishra Vs Director (Personnel) Mcl

Manjari Patra Vs State of Odisha