IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17361 of 2026 Jamuna Mundary …. Petitioner Mr. S. Roy, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. U. Behura, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 09.06.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition 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 on contractual basis with effect from 01.12.2017 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 service of the petitioner forthwith; and p. 2 p. 2 (iii) Why the Opposite Party No. 4 will not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner on receipt of such approval and to grant all consequential service and 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.” 4. Considering the nature of order going to be passed, this Court is of the view that no notice need be issued to Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4. 5. It is contended that claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization though has been accepted by the Opp. Party-RMC vide Annexure-7 proceeding dated 02.03.2024, forwarded to Opp. Party No.2 vide Memo No.265 dtd.15.03.2024, but in absence of the approval being given by Opp. Party No.2, petitioner is unable to get the benefit of regularisation. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No.2 be directed to approve the decision taken by the RMC in its proceeding dtd. 02.03.2024 so forwarded on 15.03.2024 under Annexure-7. 6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while p. 3 p. 3 disposing the Writ Petition, directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision with regard to approval of the decision taken by the RMC in the proceeding of the meeting held on 02.03.2024 under Annexure-7, so forwarded to him vide Memo No.265 dated 15.03.2024, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, if the same has not yet been disposed of. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Vacation Judge Basudev