p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1816 of 2024 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants Represented By Adv. – Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, AGA -versus- Hrushikesh Jena …. Respondent Represented By Adv. – Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ORDER 15.07.2025 1. This intra-Court appeal by the State seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 19.12.2023 rendered in W.P. (C) No.40815 of 2023, whereby a direction has been issued to the appellants herein for consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularization of service. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants seeks to submit that the order of the kind could not have been issued in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others: AIR 2006 SC 1806 followed by State of Karnataka v. ML Kesari and others: AIR 2010 SC 2587. Order No. 01. p. 2 3. Mr. Mohanty submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have given a reasonable opportunity of meeting the case of the petitioner and that having not been given, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent-employee resists the appeal contending that his client has been working since last 1993 and thus he has put in more than 32 years of spotless service and that would entitle him to the order of regularization. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter. We broadly agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and also the submission made on behalf of employee by the learned counsel, if a person has worked for 32 long years, it would not auger well to the appellants herein to say that they would not regularize the services of such person. The very fact that more than 3 decades the employee is permitted to continue his service uninterruptedly goes to show that there is a dire requirement of his services. 6. The submission of learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants that opportunity was not given to the appellants and the matter has been disposed of at the admission stage, arguably may be true. However, that could not come to his aid inasmuch as the order is only to consider the case of respondent- employee and nothing beyond that. Therefore all contentions have kept open which may be reflected in the order which appellants are directed to pass in respect of the claim for regularization. In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and accordingly rejected. The order of learned Single p. 3 Judge shall be complied with and compliance report shall be filed before the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of three weeks. Now, no costs. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Jyostna