Disposed¶23

Santilata Mali v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC29 Jan 2026WP(C)/2675/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Santilata Mali v. State of Odisha & Ors.; W.P.(C) No.2675 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; order dated 29.01.2026; regularization in service; antidating regularization date to 06.11.2019 versus 29.03.2022; Order No.227 Estt. dated 13.01.2025; Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Koraput; Annexure-10; representation Annexure-11; disposal without opinion on merits; direction to consider representation within three months; P.K. Mohanty (petitioner's counsel); P.P. Behera ASC (State counsel); hybrid mode hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.1 to consider the petitioner's representation vide Annexure-11 in accordance with law within three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ¶23

Santilata Mali Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2675 of 2026

¶3

Santilata Mali …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P.K. Mohanty (2), Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC

¶8

COROM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

29.01.2026

Order No

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶15

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶16

“The petitioner therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to antidate the date of regularization in service of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.2019 instead of 29.03.2022 by modifying the order No.227 Estt. dated 13.01.2025 of the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Koraput under Annexure-10 accordingly, so far as the same relates to the petitioner.

¶17

And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute.

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

And/or pass any other order/orders this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

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

¶21

4 . In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner state that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-11 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.

¶22

5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-11 in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶23

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶25

Jyoti/Suchitra

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF O RIS SA Date: 29-Jan-2026 17:55:51

¶28

Page 2 of 2