Disposed¶21

Ratiprasanna Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Mar 2026WP(C)/3122/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of contractual service; Assistant Manager vacancy w.e.f. 12.12.2012; Odisha Group B, C and Group D posts (Repeal and Special Provisions Rule, 2022; pending representation (Annexure-6) before Opposite Party No. 3; direction to decide representation within 3 months and communicate result; disposed without expressing opinion on merits; writ of mandamus; State of Odisha.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No. 3 to take a decision on the petitioner's pending representation/petition in accordance with law within three (3) months from receipt of the order and to communicate the result to the Petitioner; Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. ¶21

Ratiprasanna Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 3122 of 2026

¶2

Ratiprasanna Nayak

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. S. Patra (1), Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

05.03.2026

¶10

Order No. 01

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶13

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶14

“In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner in regular vacancy of the Asst. Manager w.e.f.12.12.2012 in terms of contractual Odisha Group B, C and Group D posts (Repeal and Special Provisions Rule, 2022 and consequential service and financial benefits thereto within a stipulated period of time.

¶15

And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper.

¶16

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall remain ever pray.”

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though highlighting his grievances, Petitioner has filed a representation at Annexure-6 to

¶18

Page 1 of 2.

¶19

the Writ Petition before the Opp. Party No. 3, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that a direction be issued to Opposite Party No. 3 to take a decision on the above noted Petition within a specific time period.

¶20

Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs Opposite Party No. 3 to take a decision on the above noted petition in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner.

¶21

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶23

Sneha

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 06-Mar-2026 11:11:38

¶26

Page 2 of 2.

Ratiprasanna Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratiprasanna Nayak 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tikelal Kumbhar Vs State of Odisha

Pradip Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Pinki Rath Vs Commissioner, Puri Muncipal Corporation, Puri

Sushri Sonali Mallik @ Arpita Vs Deputy Director, Aviation Research Centre, Cuttack

Ramachandra Rohidas Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha