IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.7467, 7468, 7471, 7472 & 10529 of 2022 Lohita Kumar Mishra & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 30.03.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present batch of Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia challenging the decision taken in the minutes of meeting of the High Power Committee held on 23.09.2021 under Annexure-13. Vide the said minutes of the meeting, benefit so accrued in favour of the Petitioners in terms of the letter dtd.30.03.2019 under Annexure-7 was withdrawn without any reason and basis. 4. It is further contended that since the Petitioners are continuing as contractual MPHW(M) since 2009, Petitioners are otherwise eligible to get the benefit of regularization / absorption. But in view of the impugned decision taken in the minutes of the meeting dtd.23.09.2021 under Annexure-13, wherein the stipulation contained in letter dtd.30.03.2019 under Annexure-7 was withdrawn, Petitioners have been deprived to get the benefit of regularization. 4.1. It is also contended that in view of such long continuance as contractual MPHW (M), Petitioners are otherwise eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization in terms of 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, 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. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that Opposite Party No.1 be directed to consider the claim of the Petitioners for their absorption in the regular establishment taking into account their long continuance as contractual MPHW(M) from the year 2009. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand contended that since the benefit of the stipulation contained in letter dtd.30.03.2019 was never extended in favour of the Petitioners and the said benefit was withdrawn in the minutes of the meeting held on 23.09.2021 Writ Petition filed challenging the said decision is premature and not entertainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that all the Writ Petition were filed challenging the decision taken by the Government in the minutes of the meeting of the High Power Committee held on 23.09.2021 under Annexure-13. As per the said decision, benefit accrued in favour of the Petitioners in terms of the letter dtd.30.03.2019 issued by the Government under Annexure-7 was withdrawn. 6.1. It is the view of this Court that benefit of letter dtd.30.03.2019 since was withdrawn basing on the impugned decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dtd.23.09.2021 prior to its implementation, Petitioners should have moved the Government- Opposite Party-1, challenging the decision, instead of approaching this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions. 6.2. However, while holding so, this Court permits the Petitioners to move individual applications before Opposite Party No.1 to get the benefit of regularization and for withdrawal of the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dtd.23.09.2021 under Annexure-13. 6.3. It is observed that if any such individual application will be filed within a period of three (3) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.1 be communicated to the Petitioners. 6.4. It is further observed that while considering the claim relevancy and effect of the decision taken in the case of Jaggo, Shripal Dharam Singh & Bhola Nath be taken into consideration. 7. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. 8. Photocopy of the said order be placed in other connected Writ Petitions. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat