IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35923 of 2025 Nilam Kumar Pattanaik …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC COROM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

04.02.2026 Order No

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Pursuant to order dt.17.12.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so issued by the Panchayati Raj and D.W. Department dt.12.01.2026. The same be kept on record.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.30.10.2025 so passed by Opp. party No.2 under Anexure-9. It is contended that while disposing W.P.(C ) No.22756 of 2022 vide order dt.12.08.2025 under Annexure-7, this Court directs the present Opp. Party No.1, who happens to be Opp. Party No.1 in the earlier Writ Petition, to take a decision on the representation to be filed by the Petitioner with regard to the claim so made in the earlier Writ Petition. It is contended that in terms of the said order, Petitioner made a detailed representation before Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-8. But on the face of this order passed by this Court on 12.08.2025 under Annexure-7, Opp. Party No.2 took up the issue and passed the impugned order by rejecting the Petitioner’s claim.

4.1.It is contended that since Opp. Party No.1 was directed to do the needful in consideration of the representation to be filed and such a representation was also filed under Annexure-8, the present Opp. Party No.2 could not have taken up the issue with passing of the impugned order. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of order under Annexure-9, Opp. party No.1 be directed to take a decision under Annexure-8 taking into account the order available under Annexure-7.

5. On instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since pursuant to the earlier order and by giving due opportunity of hearing, Opp. Party No.2 has passed the order at Annexure-9, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. It is also contended that Petitioner since an employee under Opp. Party No.2, it is Opp. Party No.2, who is competent to take a decision.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was earlier before this Court in W.P.(C ) No.22756 of 2022. As found from order dt.12.08.2025 under Annexure-7, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permitted the Petitioner to move Opp. Party No.1 i.e. the Finance Deptt. and his stand for consideration of his claim by the Secretary of the said Department. As found in terms of Annexure-7 order, Petitioner made a detailed representation on 26.08.2025 under Annexure-8.

6.1. However, as found, the impugned order has been passed by Opp. party No.2. Since this Court had directed Opp. party No.1 to deal with the issue, taking into account the representation to be filed by the Petitioner and Petitioner in compliance of the said order, made a representation under Anenxure-8, it is the view of this Court that Opp. party No.1 should have taken a pause on the issue, as directed.

6.2. Since the impugned order has been passed by an authority who has never permitted to do so by this Court , this Court is inclined to quash order dt.30.10.2025 so passed under Annexure-9. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. party No.1 to take a decision on Annexure-8, taking into account the order passed by this Court on 12.08.2025 under Annexure-7. Such a fresh order be passed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner.

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signed by: SANGITA PATRA

Reason: AUTHENTICAITON OF ORDER

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

Date: 18-Feb-2026 17:32:14