IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13185 of 2019 CNR No.ODHC010403482019 Premalata Mallick …. Petitioner Mr. U.K. Samal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.P. Patra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDEROrder 13.08.2026 No 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date the petitioner has been working as Jr. Steno i.e. 21.08.1996 with consequential benefits. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper to give complete relief to the petitioner.” // 2 // 4. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No.2 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of her claim, if any, within a period of two(2) weeks hence.

5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, Opp. Party No.2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by the Opp. Party No.2 be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid time period. 5.1. It is further observed that while taking such a decision relevancy and effect of the recent judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99 as well as in the case of Sukhendu Bhatacharjee & Ors. vs. the State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 523, be taken into consideration. Petitioner is permitted to enclose all the decisions to be relied on by him along with his representation for consideration of his claim. If while considering the petitioner’s claim any prior sanction from the Govt. is required, the same shall also be dealt with by the appropriate authority. Page 2 of 3 // 3 // 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2026 14:36:07

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13185 of 2019 CNR No.ODHC010403482019 Premalata Mallick …. Petitioner Mr. U.K. Samal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.P. Patra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDEROrder 13.08.2026 No 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date the petitioner has been working as Jr. Steno i.e. 21.08.1996 with consequential benefits. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper to give complete relief to the petitioner.” // 2 // 4. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No.2 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of her claim, if any, within a period of two(2) weeks hence.

5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, Opp. Party No.2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by the Opp. Party No.2 be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid time period. 5.1. It is further observed that while taking such a decision relevancy and effect of the recent judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99 as well as in the case of Sukhendu Bhatacharjee & Ors. vs. the State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 523, be taken into consideration. Petitioner is permitted to enclose all the decisions to be relied on by him along with his representation for consideration of his claim. If while considering the petitioner’s claim any prior sanction from the Govt. is required, the same shall also be dealt with by the appropriate authority. Page 2 of 3 // 3 // 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2026 14:36:07