p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.21460 OF 2025 Santosh Kumar Pusty …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mahanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp.Parties Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER Order No. 02. 06.08.2025 Petitioner, an employee is knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving against non-consideration of his representation for regularization of his services though O.P. No.2 vide letter dated 13.04.2023 at Annexure-12 has recommended his case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invokes decision of the Apex Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 3547 in support of his case. 3. Leaned AGA-Mr. Mohanty appearing for O.P. No.3, though initially resisted the petition contending that right to regularization is not absolute and it is too much conditioned by virtue of decision in State of Karnatak v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, now graciously agrees with the suggestion of this Court to instruct his clients to look into grievance of the Petitioner, as has been aired in the representation dated 15.03.2023 at Annexure-9 in a time bound p. 2 way and in accordance with law, if all contentions are kept open. This is appreciable. In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed of fixing three months as period for compliance. It hardly needs to be stated that the authority shall give due advertence to O.P. No.3’s is recommendation dated 13.04.2023 and the law declared by the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) INSC 1034. Now, no costs. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Madhusmita