JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. None appeared on behalf of Opp.Party No.4 in spite of due appearance.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization vide order dated 31.01.2022, so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-12.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged as a DEO on contractual basis vide order dated 03.02.2010 so issued by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-1. After being so engaged on contractual basis, petitioner when was not regularized on the face of the communication made by the Municipality under Annexure-5 and 7, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34244 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 10.12.2020 under Annexure-11, when directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 under Annexure-12.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contended that since petitioner’s initial engagement is on con