IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32049 of 2022 Lochani Sahoo & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 03.02.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) 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 prayed, therefore that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; i) Admit the writ petition and (i) Quash the impugned order vide No.10095 dated 30.09.2022 under Annexure-8; ii) And further be pleased to direct the O.P.No.3 to modify the order of regular absorption vide No.3494 dated 31.03.2022 under Annexure-5 and regularize the services of petitioners in regular establishment against Group-D posts w.e.f. 28.02.2014 at par with their counter parts of Arboriculture Organization of G.A. Department, Odisha with all service and financial within a stipulated period of time. iii) Pass such other order (s), direction (s) as deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case to give complete relief to the petitioner; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that though similarly situated employees working in ARGORI Culture Organization, State Capital Nursery Unit-II, Bhubaneswar were regularized vide order dtd.28.02.2014 of the GA & PG Department under Annexure-6, Petitioner being similarly situated when was regularized vide office order dtd.31.03.2022 under Annexure-5, claiming extension of similar benefit as has been extended to the employees working in another organization so regularized vide office order dtd.28.02.2014, Petitioners made a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7. 4.1. It is contended that in the said representation, Petitioners prayed for extension of similarly benefit as has been extended in favour of the other group of employees vide order dtd.28.02.2014 under Annexure-6. 4.2. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the claim so made and without delaying with the issue regarding extension of similar benefit vide order dtd.28.02.2014, claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned office order dtd.30.09.2022 under Annexure-8. 4.3. It is contended that the plea raised by the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 28.02.2014, since has not at all been dealt with by Opposite Party No.3, while rejecting the claim vide order dtd.30.09.2022, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter be remitted to the said authority to take a fresh decision taking into account the benefit of regularization extended in favour of the similarly situated employees vide order dtd.28.02.2014 under Annexure-6. 4.4. It is further contended that vide another order issued on 30.06.2014 under Annexure-11 by the Deputy Director, Horticulture, Cuttack, similarly situated employees were appointed on regular basis vide order dtd.30.06.2014. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission. 5.1. It is contended that since the Petitioners have already been regularized vide order dtd.31.03.2022 under Annexure-5, no further claim can be entertained, so made in their representation under Annexure-7. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since after due consideration of their grievance so made in Annexure-7, the claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.30.06.2022 under Annexure-8, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Petitioners while working as casual labourers, they were initially conferred with the temporary status vide office order dtd.02.04.2015 and subsequently absorbed against regular vacant Group-D post of Attendant vide order dtd.31.03.2022 under Annexure-5. However, claiming similar benefits as has been extended in favour of similarly situated employees vide office order dtd.28.02.2014 under Annexure-6, so issued by the GA Department, Petitioners made a joint representation under Annexure-7 inter alia with the prayer to absorb them w.e.f. 28.02.2014. However, as found from the impugned order, the grievance made in Annexure-7 and the contention regarding extension of the benefit vide office order dtd.28.02.2014 under Annexure-6, has not been taken into consideration by Opposite Party No.3, while rejecting such claim of the Petitioner. 6.1. Since the ground on which Petitioners raised their claim under Annexure-7 has not been dealt with by Opposite Party No.3, while rejecting their claim vide the impugned order, this Court is of the view that claim of the Petitioners requires a fresh consideration by the said authority. 6.2. In that view of the matter, this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.30.09.2022 so issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-8, remits the matter to the said authority for taking a lawful decision on the same and with due consideration of their grievance so made under Annexure-7. This Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months hence. It is further observed that while taking a such decision, relevancy and effect of the order dtd.30.06.2014 so available under Annexure-11 be also taken into consideration, if it is applicable in addition to order dtd.28.02.2014 issued under Annexure-6. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat