Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:

It is in the circumstances, humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit the writ Petition, issue notice to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why this writ petition shall not be allowed and if the Opp. Parties do not show cause of show insufficient or false cause then after hearing the Counsel for the parties be pleased to allow the writ petition by quashing the report/order of the Collector, Puri (Opp. Party No.2) as at (Annexure-8) and direct the Opp. Parties to regularize the services of the Petitioner and pay all his unpaid wages including all consequential relief and be further pleased to pass any other or further order/orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a daily Wage Work Sarkar in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 w.e.f 01.09.1992 and the same is reflected in order dt.21.01.1993 so issued by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-1. It is contended that even though the Petitioner was allowed to continued as a daily wage Work Sarkar, in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 w.e.f 01.09.1992 and when he was not regularised, he moved Opp. Party No.3 on 06.05.2013 under Annexure-2 with a prayer to absorb him in the post in question.

4.1. As the claim of the Petitioner was not considered, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1338 of 2015. The Tribunal vide order dt.08.08.2016 under Annexure-4 while directing Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation so recommended by Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 vide letter dt.01.07.2013 under Annexure-3, also directed for release of the wages as due and admissible w.e.f October, 2014.

4.2. It is contended that since the order passed by the Tribunal was not complied, Petitioner filed CONTC (CPC ) No.461 of 2016 and thereafter CONTC No.4566 of 2022 seeking compliance of order dt.08.08.2016. However, since vide the impugned order communicated vide Memo dt.31.10.2022, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation was rejected, the Contempt Petition was dropped vide order dt.13.12.2022 under Annexure-7.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though claim of the Petitioner was rejected, so far as regularisation is concerned, but on the face of his working in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 as a daily wage Work Sarkar all through, his salary w.e.f October, 2014 was never released in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 08.08.2016 under Annexure-4.

4.4. It is also contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected, so far as regularisation is concerned vide the impugned order communicated vide Memo dt.31.10.2022 under Annexure-8, relying on a communication issued by the Panchayat Raj Department on 16.10.2014 under Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit, is not sustainable in the eye of law, as Petitioner was engaged as a daily Wage Sarkar w.e.f 01.09.1992 so reflected in Annexure-1 and stipulation contained in Annexure-A/3 on 16.10.2014 cannot be made applicable to the Petitioner’s claim.

4.5. It is contended that since Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Work Sarkar w.e.f 01.09.1992, stipulation contained in the communication issued by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 on 16.10.2014 under Annexure-A/3, so far as engagement of daily wage personnel in the Panchayat Samiti, District Panchayat, Grama Panchayat offices are concerned, cannot be made applicable to the case of the Petitioner.

4.6. It is also contended that even though Petitioner continued beyond October, 2014, but he was not paid with his salary/wages w.e.f October, 201