Disposed¶31

Gourang Ch.Mohapatra v. State Youth Welfare

Orissa HC9 Jul 2026WP(C)/20820/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 20820/2010, High Court of Orissa: writ claim for absorption in existing vacancy versus outsource agency and service benefits from joining; disposed via representation route — three weeks to file representation, three-month decision timeline with communication, interim bar on coercive action; allied M.C. No.16569 of 2024 dismissed as not pressed; single bench, J. Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; order dated 09.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of: liberty to file a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.1 with documents and citations within three weeks; Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision within three months of receipt and communicate it to the Petitioners; no coercive action against the Petitioners till such decision. ¶31

Gourang Ch.Mohapatra Vs State Youth Welfare — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued directing the Opposite Parties to absorb the Petitioners in the existing vacancy on regular basis before allowing persons from an outsource agency to the job. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Taking into account the claim raised in the Writ Petition without adjudicating it on merits, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to make a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.1, enclosing relevant documents and citations, within three weeks.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Misc. Case (M.C. No.16569 of 2024) stands dismissed as not pressed, learned counsel for the Petitioners having contended that they did not want to press it.

¶16

Key takeaways

If such representation is filed within the stated period, Opposite Party No.1 shall take a lawful decision on it within three months from the date of receipt, and the order so passed is to be communicated to the Petitioners.ratio¶27
Interim protection: till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive action is to be taken against the Petitioners.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (J. Biraja Prasanna Satapathy), order dated 09.07.2026. Companion M.C. No.16569 of 2024 dismissed as not pressed at the instance of counsel for the Petitioners. In W.P.(C) No.20820 of 2010 — Gourang Ch. Mohapatra & Anr. v. State Youth Welfare & Anr. — where the Petitioners sought a mandamus directing absorption in an existing vacancy on regular basis before engagement of outsource-agency personnel, along with all service benefits from date of joining, the Court did not adjudicate the claim; it disposed of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to file a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.1 within three weeks, directing Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision within three months of receipt and communicate it to the Petitioners, and ordering that no coercive action be taken against the Petitioners till such decision.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20820 of 2010

¶2

Gourang Ch. Mohapatra …. Petitioners & Anr. Mr. P.K. Nanda, Adv.

¶3

-versus-

¶4

State Youth Welfare & Anr.

¶5

…. Opp. Parties Mr. K.P. Nanda, Adv. for O.P.1 Mr. S.R. Dash, Adv. for O.P.2

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

09.07.2026

Order

M.C. No.16569 of 2024

¶13

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

¶14

2. Heard.

¶15

3. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that they do not want to press this Misc. Case.

¶16

4. Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶17

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶18

Judge

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

W.P.(C) No.20820 of 2010

¶21

11. 1. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, he is permitted to correct the description of Opposite Party No.1 in Court today.

¶22

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶23

3 . Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:-

¶24

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court nay graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling men the Opp.parties to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) shall not be issued directing the Opp.parties to absorb the petitioners in the existing vacancy on regular basis before allowing other person from outsource agency to the job and further be pleased to direct the Opp. parties to provide all service benefits from date of their joining and upon perusal/or causes shown in case of the insufficiency, this Hon'ble Court may make the said rule absolute and may pass such other order/orders Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper; as this

¶25

And for which act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶26

4. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to make a detailed representation before Opp. Party No.1 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of their claim, if any, within a period of three (3) weeks hence.

¶27

5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, Opp. Party No.1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by the Opp. Party No.1 be communicated to the

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

Petitioners within the aforesaid time period. Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioners.

¶31

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶32

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶33

Subrat