IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.12432 & 25571 of 2024, W.P.(C) Nos.13942, 14900 & 17388 of 2025 Sayed Mukhtar Ali & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate Mr.S. Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 18.02.2026 08. 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 the present batch of Writ Petitions is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. Even though different prayers have been made in each of the Writ Petitions, but in course of hearing, it is fairly contended by the learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners that, Petitioners were initially engaged on contractual basis vide orders of appointment issued on dtd.12.11.2013 in favour of the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.13942 of 2025, on dtd.22.07.2013 in W.P.(C) No.14900 of 2025, on dtd.04.04.2014 in W.P.(C) No.25571 of 2024 and on dtd.18.01.2014 in W.P.(C) No.12432 of 2024 and on dtd.24.02.2014 in W.P.(C) No.17388 of 2025. 4.1. It is contended that since all the Petitioners were engaged on contractual basis under a Scheme and by facing due recruitment process, they became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization after completion of six years of contractual engagement, in terms of GA Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014. But Petitioners when were not regularized on completion of six years of engagement on contractual basis and were regularized prospectively, Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.13942 of 2025 and 14900 of 2025, raised their claim for regularization from their initial date of engagement on contractual basis. Such claim of the Petitioners in the above said two writ petitions was rejected vide order dtd.27.01.2025 and 09.01.2025 respectively. 4.2. It is however fairly contended that no such claim of the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25571 of 2024 & 12432 of 2024 has been rejected, even though similar claim has been made to regularize their services from their initial date of engagement. 4.3. It is further contended in course of hearing that liberty be given to the Petitioners in each of the cases to make a fresh claim to get the benefit of regularization from the date of completion of six years of engagement on contractual basis before Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 be directed to take a lawful decision on the same without taking into consideration the rejection, so impugned in W.P.(C) No.13942 of 2025 and 14900 of 2025. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel 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, observe that if any such application will be filed by the Petitioners individually 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 each of the Petitioners. 6.1. It is further observed that while taking such a decision on the claim of the Petitioners, the earlier rejection of the claim shall not be taken into consideration and a fresh decision be taken on the claim of the Petitioners taking into account the stand to be taken in the representation. 7. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. 8. Photocopy of the order be placed in other connected Writ Petitions. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat