Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.24011 of 2021 Sudipta Mishra and Others ..... Petitioner Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. No.3 Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.08.2025 Order No. 08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the opp. party No.2 and 3 to forthwith issue a formal order regularizing services of the petitioners as Computer Assistant in Puri Municipality in scale of pay of Rs.5,200-20,200/- + GP Rs.l900/- with consequential benefits with effect from 01.01.2017 i.e., the date of their completing six years of services as per GA Department Resolution dt. 17.09.2013 and in the same manner as in Annexure-6 series and Annexure-7 and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 and the recent decision of this Hon'ble Court in Annexure-8 and pass such other order (s) as deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice and fair play.” Page 2 of 3. 4. It is contended that all the petitioners were engaged as NMR w.e.f. 01.01.2011 so reflected under Annexure-1. It is contended that even though all the petitioners are continuing as NMRs/DLRs in Puri Municipality w.e.f. 01.01.2011 and they have completed more than 14 years of engagement in the meantime, but on the face of the recommendation made by the Municipality, Govt.-O.P. No.1 is not taking any final decision with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioners. 4.1. It is contended that in view of such long continuance, petitioners are eligible to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnatak Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 and Nihal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, 2013 (14) SCC 65. 4.2. A further contention was also raised that Hon’ble Apex Court in the meantime in the case of Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others and Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, has taken a view that persons engaged on DLR/NMR basis for a pretty long period are entitled to get the benefit of regularization. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Municipality-O.P. No.3 also fairly contended that all the petitioners are continuing as NMR/DLR w.e.f. 01.01.2011 and their claim for regularization has already been recommended by the Municipality since 2020 vide Annexure-2. But O.P. No.1 is not taking any decision on the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, Page 3 of 3. permits the petitioners to move respective individual applications before O.P. No.1 for consideration of their claim for regularization. It is observed that if any such application will be moved before O.P. No.1 within a period of three weeks from today, O.P. No.1 shall take a lawful decision on the same taking into account the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the recommendation of the Municipality within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of such application, with due communication to the petitioner. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Basudev Designation: SR. STENO