Orissa High Court
WP(C)/19718/2026 of TAPAN KUMAR PANIGRAHI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 20 August 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.19718 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010460282026 Tapan Kumar Panigrahi and others …. Petitioners Mr. Arjuna Charana Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.19718 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010460282026
Tapan Kumar Panigrahi
and others
….
Petitioners
Mr. Arjuna Charana Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
20.08.2026 (Hybrid Mode)
02.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners have stated to be earlier working as security guards employed through agency, which was providing such service to the opposite party no.3- Chief District Medical Officer & Public Health Officer, District Headquarter Hospital, Balasore in various establishments under the said authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the representation dated 20.03.2025 annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure-1 and the letter issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department dated 10.04.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention to the contents of the letter dated 10.04.2025 as at Annexure-2 wherein the State Government has requested the CDMO & PHO to ‘take appropriate action as per the rules’ on the representation made by the petitioners (Annexure-1).
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners seek direction to the opposite party no.3-authority for consideration of the representation and writ petition may be disposed of.
5. In response, the learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the representation, if it is still pending, shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by the appropriate authority within a reasonable time.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned ASC for the State, this Court is not seeking any response from the opposite parties regarding the contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petition.
7. It is directed that the opposite party no.3- authority shall do well to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure-1) if still pending consideration in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order along with copies of the Annexures-1 and 2 as indicated above.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the case or any of the contentions of the parties to the writ petition.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge
jyotsna Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Aug-2026 17:09:27 Signature Not Verified