[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And on 18 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19418 of 2022
Manoj Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 18.12.2025
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Pursuant to order dated 08.12.2025, learned Addl.
Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by
the Director. The same be kept in record.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with
the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordship's be
graciously pleased to pass following relief(s);-
(i) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to allow
the Writ petition,
(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the
impugned order of rejection dtd. 16.07.2022 under
Annexure-13 with further directing the Opp. Party
// 2 //
authorities to regularise the service of the petitioner in the
regular available Class-IV/Group-D vacant post under
the administrative control of Opp. party no-3 keeping in
view of his long continuance of 28 years service as
contingent labour on DLR basis so also keeping in view of
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of
"Uma Devi", "M.L. Keshari", "Amarkant Ray" 8c Others so
also the decision of this Hon'ble Court is several similar
nature of cases with all consequential serve k financial
benefits within a time bound period for the interest of
justice.
(iii) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to pass
any other Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may be deemed fit and proper,"
5. It is contended that only on the ground that petitioner
has been engaged after 12.04.1993, petitioner's claim to get
the benefit of regularisation has been rejected vide the
impugned order dated 16.07.2022 under Annexure-13.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
ground on which petitioner's claim has been rejected is no
more sustainable in view of the judgment delivered by this
Court on 02.05.2023 in W.P.C(OAC) No.1568 of 2018 and
further order passed by this Court on 20.08.2025 in
W.P.(C) No.17395 of 2022 and batch as well as order dated
01.12.2025 in W.P.(C) No.17483 of 2021 and batch.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which
petitioner's claim has been rejected, is no more sustainable
and it requires interference of this Court.
6. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel contended that sine petitioner has been engaged
after the cut off date, he is not eligible and entitled to get
the benefit for regularization. It is also contended that after
rejecting the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of
// 3 //
regularization, when he was dis-engaged pursuant to the
interim order passed by this Court on 03.08.2022,
petitioner is continuing in his services.
6.1. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner is not
in continuous engagement as a DLR, he is not otherwise
eligible to get the benefit. It is accordingly contended that
the impugned order has been rightly passed.
7. To the submission made by learned Addl. Standing
Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner made further
submission contending inter-alia that pursuant to the
earlier order passed by this Court while considering and
rejecting claim of the petitioner for regularization, when he
was dis-engaged, challenging such order of rejection as well
as the direction to dis-engage the petitioner, the present
Writ Petition was filed. However, pursuant to the interim
order dated 03.08.2022, petitioner is continuing without
any break.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view
that claim of the petitioner so rejected vide the impugned
order dated 16.08.2022 under Annexure-13, is no more
sustainable in view of the judgment delivered by this Court
on 02.05.2023 in W.P.C(OAC) No.1568 of 2018 and further
order passed by this Court on 20.08.2025 in W.P.(C)
No.17395 of 2022 and batch as well as order dated
01.12.2025 in W.P.(C) No.17483 of 2021 and batch.
// 4 //
8.1. Therefore, this Court while quashing impugned order
dated 16.07.2022 under Annexure-13, disposed of the Writ
Petition in the light of the order passed on 02.05.2023 in
W.P.C(OAC) No.1568 of 2018 and further order passed by
this Court on 20.08.2025 in W.P.(C) No.17395 of 2022 and
batch as well as order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.(C)
No.17483 of 2021 and batch and direct Opp. Party No.1 to
pass a fresh order within a period of 2 (two) months from
the date of receipt of this order.
9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
