IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16384 of 2021 Binayak Bal …. Petitioner Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate for TPCODL Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 08.12.2025 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 26.03.2021, so passed by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-9. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner for absorption in the regular establishment has been rejected. 4. It is contended that petitioner was engaged as a Jr. Artisan-B (Contract) vide order dated 08.02.2010 so issued by the authorities of the previous distribution company under Annexure-1. Subsequently, vide order dated 03.11.2011, petitioner was appointed as against the post of Diploma Engineer (Electrical) on contractual basis. It is contended that petitioner though in terms of order at Annexure-2, was allowed to continue as contractual Diploma Engineer(Electrical), but when he was not regularized, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18500 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 02.09.2020 under Annexure-8, directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization. 4.1. However, such claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 under Annexure-9, on the ground that petitioner’s initial appointment on contractual basis is not against a sanctioned post and he has not been so appointed by facing due process of selection. 4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that not only petitioner was appointed as a contractual Diploma Engineer(Electrical) vide order dated 03.11.2011 under Annexure-2, but also he was allowed to continue all through without any break. 4.3. It is also contended that even after rejection of his claim vide order dated 26.03.2021, petitioner is continuing as on date. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner in the meantime has already rendered more than 14 years of service as a contractual Diploma Engineer, in view of the recent decisions in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, petitioner’s claim is required to be considered afresh. 5. Mr. L. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the TPCODL on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that petitioner since has been appointed as against a non-sanctioned post and without facing any recruitment process, even though petitioner was appointed as a Diploma Engineer(Electrical) on contractual basis vide order dated 03.11.2011 under Annexure-2, but he is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization. 5.1. It is also contended that by virtue of the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.18500 of 2020, petitioner also continued for a certain period of time. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that petitioner was appointed as a Diploma Engineer(Electrical) on contractual basis vide order dated 03.11.2011 under Annexure-2. On the face of his continuance after such appointment on contractual basis, when he was not regularized, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18500 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 02.09.2020 under Annexure-8, directed the Opp. Party-Distribution Company to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization. But as found, such claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 under Annexure-9 on the ground that petitioner has been appointed against a non-sanctioned post and without facing any recruitment process. 6.1. This Court taking into account the continuance of the petitioner as a contractual Diploma Engineer w.e.f. 03.11.2011 and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is continuing as on date even after rejection of his claim, is of the view that the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected, is no more sustainable in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh so cited (supra). 6.2. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 so issued under Annexure-9, direct O.P. No.4 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim, taking into account the decisions in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order along with the decision of the Apex Court so cited (supra) for compliance. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev