IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) Nos.27715, 27718 & 27721 of 2023 WP(C) No.27715 of 2023 Sambhari Jena ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

10.02.2025 Order No.02

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Since similar issue is involved in all these 3 writ petitions, all the writ petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. All these writ petitions have been filed inter alia with the similar prayer, which reads as follows:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ petition, issue notice to the opposite parties and after hearing the parties, the order passed by Opp. party No.1 on dt. 02.05.2023 (Annexure-9) may kindly be quashed and the 4 petitioner may kindly be regularised in her service with effect from 31.07.2014 instead of 1.3.2021 along with all consequential service benefits in the interest of justice.

And to issue any other writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.

And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

5. It is contended that though similarly situated NMRs/DLRs were regularized w.e.f.31.07.2014, but Petitioners when were regularized w.e.f.01.0.2021 vide order under Annexure-4, claiming extension of the benefit of regularization from the date similarly situated NMRs/DLRs were so brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f.31.07.2014, Petitioners made representation before Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-6.

5.1. It is contended that such claim of the Petitioners when was not considered, they approached this Court by filing individual writ petitions. This Court when directed for consideration of the claim of the Petitioners, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.02.05.2023, inter alia on the ground that since Petitioners approached this Court for the first time in the year 2020 seeking regularization of their services, no further benefit is entertainable.

5.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that on the face of extension of the benefit of regularization in favour of similarly situated NMRs/DLRs w.e.f.31.07.2014, Petitioners when were not extended with similar benefit in spite of repeated approach, they approached this Court initially in the year 2020. Pursuant to the order by this Court, when they were regularized w.e.f.01.03.2021 vide order under Annexure-4, claiming benefit of regularization from the date similarly situated employees were so regularized w.e.f.31.07.2014, Petitioners made grievance before the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1. As the same was not considered, they approached this Court once again and pursuant to the order of this Court claim of the Petitioners has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.02.05.2023 under Annexure-9. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which claim of the Petitioners has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires a fresh consideration taking into account the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated NMRs/DLRs w.e.f.31.07.2014.

6. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 02.09.2023, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, basing on the available materials, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that, since on consideration it was found that Petitioners for the first time moved this Court in the year 2020, seeking regularization of their service and in terms of the said order, they were regularized vide order dtd.01.03.2021 under Annexure-4, no further claim at their instance is entertainable. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissio