Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 5198 of 2014 Paramananda Mandal ..... Petitioner Mr. A. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. A. Parida, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 2) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.07.2026 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. A. Parida, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 2. 3. In course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that during pendency of the writ petition, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9297 of 2017. Even though this Court vide order dtd.11.07.2017, directed Opp. Party No. 2 to consider the Petitioner’s claim for regularization, but the same is yet to be complied with and for which an execution proceeding has been filed before this Court. 3.1. It is also contended that person similarly situated has got the benefit of regularization in the meantime pursuant to the order passed Page 2 of 2. by the Govt. in the Housing and Urban Development Department. It is accordingly contended that liberty be given to the Petitioner to prosecute the execution proceeding and produce all the materials showing regularization of similarly situated person. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 2 has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 5. Considering the submission made, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha