IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.12548 of 2022

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India.

………………

A. Arun Kumar & Ors. …. Petitioners

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties

For Petitioners : Mr. K.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate

along with

Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Das

Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. D. Nayak, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 3 to 5)

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 28.11.2025 and Date of Judgment: 28.11.2025

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. D. Nayak, learned

counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 3 to 5.

3. The present writ petition has bene filed inter alia challenging order dtd.24.12.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3, wherein claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization taking into account their long continuance was rejected.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were all engaged in the year 1992 in the then Cuttack Municipality. While so continuing when Petitioners were illegally disengaged in the year 1995, Petitioners challenging such action of the Municipality approached this Court in OJC No. 9113 of 1995. This Court when vide order dtd.19.12.1995, passed an interim order of status quo to be maintained, Petitioners were suo moto reengaged in their work on

23.12.1995 vide office order of the same date under Annexure-2.

4.1. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that after being so reengaged vide office order dtd.23.12.1995, Petitioners were allowed to continue as before. Taking into such long continuance of the Petitioners w.e.f. 1992 and even after the reengagement vide order dtd.23.12.1995 under Annexure-2, Petitioners when were not absorbed in the regular establishment, they approached this Court with a prayer to take their services to be counted w.e.f. the initial date of engagement in 1992 and for correction of the gradation list so issued by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation.

4.2. When the same was not considered, Petitioners once again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13232 of 2010. This Court vide order dtd03.03.2015 under Annexure-3 directed Opp. Party No. 3 to consider the grievance of the Petitioners by giving due opportunity of hearing. But such claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide order dtd.04.09.2015 under Annexure-4 and in the said order it was held that position of the Petitioners in the gradation list by showing their engagement of the year 1995 is justified.

4.3. It is contended that thereafter, Petitioners when were not regularized in their services, even if their engagement was taken of the year 1995, they approached this Court once again by filing W.P.(C) No. 27758 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.23.09.2021 under Annexure-6, when directed the Cuttack Municipal Corporation to consider their claim, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.24.12.2021 under Annexure-7, inter alia on the ground that W.P.(C) No. 9113 of 1995 so filed by them challenging their disengagement, was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd.22.11.2021.

4.4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that W.P.(C) No. 9113 of 1995 was filed challenging the order of disengagement issued by the then Municipality. However, this Court when passed an interim order on 19.10.1995, Petitioners were suo moto reengaged by the Municipality vide order dt.23.12.1995 under Annexure-2 and were allowed to continue. Accordingly, prayer made in the said writ petition became infructuous after their reengagement suo moto by the Municipality. It is accordingly contended that th