ARCHANAMAYI NAYAK vs STATE OF ODISHA — WP(C)/10428/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010237192026

e-Filing Number

30-03-2026

Filing Number

WP(C)/14052/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/10428/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Coram

Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 31 )

Sub-Category

REGULARISATION OF AD-HOC EMPLOYEES ETC. ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARCHANAMAYI NAYAK

    Adv. KRISHNA CHANDRA SAHU,S.PRADHAN, D.K.MAHALIK, P.ACHARYA,S.PRADHAN, D.K.MAHALIK, P.ACHARYA, S.PRADHAN, D.K.MAHALIK, P.ACHARYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ODISHA

  2. 2.DIRECTOR, FAMILY WELFARE, BHUBANESWAR

  3. 3.CHIEF DISTRICT MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER,. PHULBANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna SatapathyView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Orissa disposed of Archanamayi Nayak's writ petition seeking regularization as a Regular MPHW(F) after six years of contractual service, without granting the relief sought. Instead, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before the State (Opposite Party No. 2) within three weeks, with supporting documents and citations. The court directed the State to pass a lawful decision within three months of receiving such representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/10428/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Orissa disposed of Archanamayi Nayak's writ petition seeking regularization as a Regular MPHW(F) after six years of contractual service, without granting the relief sought. Instead, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before the State (Opposite Party No. 2) within three weeks, with supporting documents and citations. The court directed the State to pass a lawful decision within three months of receiving such representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case