IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.15434 & 15436 of 2024 Naresh Kumar Meher …. Petitioners Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 12.03.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that, Petitioners were engaged as Video Conferencing Operator on daily wage basis pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Inspector General of Prisons and D.C.S, Orissa under Annexure-1, vide order dtd.31.03.2012 under Annexure-4. Pursuant to such order both the Petitioners joined on 04.04.2012. However, without issuing any show cause and following the principle of natural justice, when both the Petitioners were disengaged, vide order dt.28.10.2014, the same was p. 2 p. 2 challenged by the Petitioners before the Tribunal by filling respective Original Applications. 4.1. The said Original Applications after being transferred to this Court due to abolition of the Tribunal, were disposed of, with a liberty to the Petitioners to make a fresh representation for consideration of their grievance. However, without proper appreciation of the claim so made by the Petitioners in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court, claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.24.04.2024 under Annexure-8. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that since Petitioners got the benefit of engagement pursuant to an advertisement issued under Annexure-1, they could not have been disengaged without following the principle of natural justice vide order dtd.28.10.2014 under Annexure-6, with rejection of their claim for re-engagement vide the other order on 24.04.2024 under Annexure-8. 4.3. However, in course of hearing and taking into account the fact that Petitioners are not in engagement since 28.10.2014, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that Petitioners be given liberty to move Opposite Party No.2 for consideration of their grievance for engagement in any available vacant post, even on daily wage basis and Opposite Party No.2 be directed to take a decision without being influenced by p. 3 p. 3 the earlier order passed on 24.04.2024 under Annexure-8 in both the cases. 5. Learned Add. Government Advocate has no serious objection to the course of action proposed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition without interfering with the impugned order dtd.24.04.2024 in both the matters, permits both the Petitioners to make individual application before Opposite Party No.2 for their engagement in any available vacant post on daily wage basis, in the establishment of the Opposite Party No.3. 6.1. It is observed that if any such application will be filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.2 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.2 be communicated to the Petitioners. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. 8. Photocopy of the order be placed in other connected Writ Petitions. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Judge