IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12088 of 2021 Rabindra Kumar Gochhayat …. Petitioner Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 06.07.2026 I.A. No.7763 of 2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. This I.A has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay in filing of the consolidated Writ Petition. 4. Considering the grounds taken, the prayer stands allowed. 5. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge W.P.(C) No.12088 of 2021 06. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization so passed by Opposite Party No.2 vide his office order dtd.10.05.2018 under Annexure-7. 3. It is contended that such a claim of the Petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that Petitioner’s engagement is after 12.04.1993, being engaged w.e.f. 01.04.1995. 4. It is also contended that on the face of such rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization, he was allowed to continue as before in the establishment of Opposite Party No.2. However, prior to getting the benefit of regularization and during pendency of the Writ Petition, Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2026. 4.1. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner continued as a DLR w.e.f. 01.04.1995 till 31.05.2026, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported 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, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization for the purpose of getting the benefit of pension. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand contended that since Petitioner’s engagement is after the cut-off date so fixed by the Finance Department, which is not disputed, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order and Petitioner since has already retired, there is no question of regularization. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh & Bhola Nath so cited (supra) is of the view that since Petitioner continued as a DLR w.e.f. 01.04.1995 till 31.05.2026, his claim for regularization prior to his attaining the age of superannuation for the purpose of release of pension, requires a fresh consideration by Opposite Party No.1. 6.1. Accordingly, this Court while quashing the order dtd.10.05.2018 under Annexure-7 directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization for the purpose of getting the benefit of pension as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the order passed in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh & Bhola Nath before Opposite Party No.1 for compliance. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Judge