Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:

i) Admit the writ application.

ii) Call for the record.

iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order of rejection dated 07.11.2023 under Annexure:12, the order of disengagement dated 03.06.2015 under Annexure:2 order dated 05.12.2012 under Annexure:3 and the office order dated 14.03.2018 under Annexure: 13 shall not be quashed.

iv) If the opposite parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order of rejection dated 07.11.2023 under Annexure: 12, the order of disengagement dated 03.06.2015 under Annexure:2, order dated 05.12.2012 under Annexure:3 and the office order dated 14.03.2018 under Annexure: 13.

v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs direction/directions directing the opposite parties to re-engage / reinstate the petitioner as a Gram Panchayat Technical Assistant forthwith and further direction be issued to extend all the service and financial benefits to the petitioner from 04.06.2015.

vi) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.

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

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a GPTA on contractual basis on being recommended by the Committee of Chief Engineers vide order dtd.26.03.2010 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined on 26.03.2010 itself. However, because of his implication in a vigilance proceeding in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3 dtd.22.01.2015, Petitioner was straight away disengaged from his services vide office order dtd.03.06.2015 under Annexure-2 w.e.f.22.01.2015.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the said vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was honorably acquitted vide judgment dtd.18.12.2021 under Annexure-5 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No. 2/2015.

4.2. It is contended that after being acquitted in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner seeking his reengagement, moved a detailed representation before Opp. Party No. 1 on 05.05.2022 under Annexure-6. However, such claim of the Petitioner when was rejected vide order dtd.17.04.2023 under Annexure-7.

4.3. Petitioner challenging the same, moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18191 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.21.06.2023 under Annexure-10 while quashing the impugned rejection, directed Opp. Party No. 2 to consider the matter afresh and take a decision with regard to claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of reengagement. But such a direction of this Court was negatived with rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of reengagement vide the impugned order dtd.07.11.2023 under Annexure-12.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, since Petitioner only on the ground of his implication in the vigilance proceeding was disengaged vide order dtd.03.06.2015 under Annexure-2 w.e.f.22.01.2015, after his acquittal vide judgment dtd.18.12.2021 under Annexure-5, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023) so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025), Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reengagement. Not only that in v