IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1889 of 2014 Rohitanand Dila and Others …. Petitioners Mr. R.N. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 24.06.2026 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned counsel and his associates entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner by filing Vakalatnama in Court. The Same be kept in record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Even though the present Writ Petition was initially filed challenging the decision taken by the Fitment Committee in its proceeding dated 30.09.2013 under Annexure-2, wherein a decision was taken to dis-engage all Group-C and Group-D employees working in DRDA on Temporary/Daily Wage Basis, but it is contended that in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 17.02.2014, all the petitioners are continuing as on date on temporary basis from their initial date of engagement so made in the year 1996-97. 4.1. It is further contended that DRDA since has merged with the Department of Panchayatiraj in the year 2013 and petitioners are all continuing on temporary basis from the year 1996-97, on the face of the decision taken by the Fitment Committee in its proceeding dated 30.09.2013 under Annexure-2, petitioners have accrued a right of regularization, because of such long continuance on temporary basis. 4.2. In support of such entitlement of the petitioners to get the benefit of regularization, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed on 10.03.2026 in W.P.(C) No.25347 of 2022. (Copy of the order so produced be kept in record.) It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No.2 be directed to take a decision on the claim of the petitioners to get the benefit of regularisation. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since the Writ Petition was filed against the decision taken by the Fitment Committee while the petitioners were continuing under the then DRDA and they are continuing because of the interim order passed by this Court on 17.02.2024, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization, even though they are engaged on temporary basis in the then DRDA in the year 1996-97 vide orders issued under Annexure-1 series. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, it is not disputed that all the petitioners after being engaged on temporary basis by the then DRDA in the year 1996-97, are continuing as on date. It is also not disputed that DRDA has merged with the Department of Panchayatiraj-O.P. No.2 and petitioners which is not disputed are continuing as such till date. 6.1. This Court accordingly while disposing the Writ Petition, directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on the claim of the petitioners to get the benefit of regularization taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99 and so also the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25347 of 2022. 6.2. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a lawful decision within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to each of the petitioners. Petitioners are permitted to provide the citations in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh and Bholanath, so also the judgment in W.P.(C) No.25347 of 2022 before Opp. Party No.2 for compliance. Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev