Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 24941 of 2025 Naresh Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Roy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 11.09.2025 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule "NISI" to the Opposite Parties to show cause as to; (i) Why the action of the Opposite Parties in not regularizing the service of the petitioner who is continuing as a Market Guard (DLR) with effect from 15.02.2008 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal; and (ii) Why the Opposite Party No.2 will not be directed to accord necessary approval to Opposite Party No.4 for regularizing the services of the petitioner forthwith; and (iii) Why the Opposite Party No.4 will not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner on receipt of such approval and grant all consequential service and Page 2 of 2. financial benefits upon such regularization within a stipulated time; And if the Opposite Parties do not show cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed; And for this act of kindness, petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that on the face of the decision taken under Annexure-4 by RMC, Dhenkanal, Opp. Party No. 2 is not taking any further action in the matter with regard to the claim involved in the present writ petition. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that if any such decision has been taken by the Regulated Market Committee and Opp. Party No. 2 is not acting on the same, let the Petitioner move the said authority for consideration of his grievance. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to move Opp. Party No. 2 to get the benefit of the decision taken by the RMC, Dhenkanal under Annexure-4. 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 is directed to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of two (2) months thereafter. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha