IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.34766 of 2023 Chandramani Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. K.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. M. Hati, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 22.01.2026 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization vide order dated 23.05.2023 under Annexure-11 of Opp. Party No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged as Data Entry Operator in the office of Executive Engineer, P.H. Division-I w.e.f. 01.02.1994. It is contended that even though petitioner continued as a NMR w.e.f. 01.02.1994 but when his p. 2 p. 2 services was not regularized on the face of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1 and State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, petitioner claiming the benefit of regularization, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1969 of 2018. 4.1. The said matter after being transferred to this Court, was disposed of vide order dated 05.01.2023 under Annexure-10 and with a direction on the Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation. It is contended that petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-11 on the ground that petitioner’s engagement since is after the cut off date so fixed by the Finance Department i.e. 12.04.1993, petitioner cannot be regularized. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since petitioner is continuing as a NMR w.e.f. 01.02.1994, which is not disputed in view of the recent decisions 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, the ground on p. 3 p. 3 which petitioner’s claim has been rejected, is no more sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. Reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed in W.A. No.2468 of 2024, disposed of on 20.01.2026. This Court while confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo so cited (supra), dismissed the writ appeal. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision with quashing of the impugned rejection in the light of the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal & Dharam Singh as well as of this Court in W.A. No.2468 of 2024. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned rejection, contended that since petitioner’s initial engagement is after the cutoff date so fixed by the Finance Department, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization and the same has been rightly rejected in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2023. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and since it is not disputed that petitioner is continuing as a NMR w.e.f. 01.02.1994, this Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh so p. 4 p. 4 cited (supra) as well as the view of this Court in W.A. No.2468 of 2024 while quashing the impugned rejection dated 23.05.2023 under Annexure-11, remits the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim in the light of the judgment in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh. Such a fresh decision as directed be taken and communicated within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev