IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.856 of 2022 Sisir Kumar Swain …. Petitioner Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 11.05.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 under Annexure-3 and to bring him over to work charge establishment with all service benefits and also to issue directions the opposite parties to regularize the service in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatak Vrs. Uma Devi AIR 2006 SC 1806 and Smt. Mira Piri Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2007 (II) OLR 533 and on such other grounds stated. 4. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Electrician on DLR basis in the office of the Junior Engineer, Rural Works Electrical Section, Cuttack since 01.10.1995 and has been working uninterruptedly awaiting regularization of his service. The further submission is that such regularization of the petitioner for having worked in the establishment since 1993 has not taken place on the premise that he has joined after the cut-off date fixed with regard to regularization in view of the ban imposed by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha. The contention is that the petitioner was removed from service but was reinstated by the order of the State Administration Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No.870(C) of 2009 and continuing as such till date and he is to retire by 31st March, 2026. Referring to the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Prasanna Kumar Sahoo and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.11392 of 2021 dated 12th December, 2022 upheld in W.A. No.1741 of 2023 dismissing the appeal filed by the State, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner, who is in service ever since initial appointment in 1993, even though, joined after cut-off date, it should be regularized in service. 5. Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State refers to the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner’s service cannot be regularized as he is continuing service on account of the order in OA No.870(C) of 2009 and that apart, his initial date of appointment is after the cut-off date i.e. 12th April, 1993. Furthermore, it is submitted that as there has been a cutoff date fixed vide B/5 to the counter affidavit and the petitioner having joined thereafter, his service cannot be regularized. In reply to the above, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Sr. counsel would submit that petitioner is similarly situated as he joined as a DLR employee after the cut-off date i.e. 12th April, 1993 like Prasanna Kumar Sahoo and six others. 6. This Court in Prasanna Kumar Sahoo (supra) considered the said aspect regarding the DLR employees joined after the cut-off date and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and other decisions held and concluded that regularization should be directed after obtaining approval of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha. The said decision in Prasanna Kumar Sahoo (supra) received approval in W.A. No.1741 of 2023, wherein, law decided by the Apex Court in Uma Devi case and State of Karnataka and others Vrs. M.L. Kesari and others 2010 9 SCC 247 and other cases have been referred to including one of this Court in State of Odisha Vrs. P. Prasanna Kumar Patro in W.P.(C) No.19767 of 2019. 7. The Court considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and that such a question regarding cut-off date and eligibility and entitlement to the regularization having been dealt with and discussed in Prasanna Kumar Sahoo (supra) and ultimately, such regularization has been upheld in W.A. No.1741 of 2023, the Court having regard to the fact that the petitioner joined as a DLR employee and has been working as such till today, he is entitled to regularization of his service and therefore, a direction is necessary in that regard. In other words, the Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner is eligible to be regularized in service in the light of the decisions referred to hereinabove and in view of the order in W.A. No.1741 of 2023. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that the opposite parties shall regularize the service of the petitioner bringing him over to the Work Charge Establishment at the earliest, soon after receipt of the copy of this order and to provide him all other financial benefits he would be entitled to upon such regularization. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat