WP(C)/22989/2026 of SHYAM SUNDAR PRADHAN Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Even though the Writ Petition has been listed under the heading ‘Fresh Admission’, but on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the Parties, the matter was heard and disposed of finally at the stage of fresh admission.

4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

// 2 //

“The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ petition and to issue Rule NISI to Opp. Parties;

i) Why the order dated 20.5.2026 (vide annexure-5) passed by the Chief Dist. Medical and Public Health Officer, Cuttack will not be quashed/set aside and;

ii) Why the opposite parties will not be directed to regularise the service of the petitioner against the post of Attendant -cum- Sweeper And pass any other order(s), direction (s) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of your kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that he made a wrong claim to get the benefit of regularization by treating the Petitioner to have been appointed on contractual basis vide order under Annexure-1.

5.1. It is accordingly contended that since a wrong has been committed by the Petitioner in making a grievance that he should be regularized being a contractual employee, the authorities rejected the same vide the impugned order dtd.20.05.2026 under Anneuxre-5.

5.2. It is fairly contended that Petitioner was appointed as a daily wager with consolidated pay vide order dtd.11.06.1999 under Annexure-1 and since then Petitioner is continuing as a daily wager in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3.

// 3 //

5.3. It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization is covered to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99.

4.4. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization by treating him as a daily wager and by following the decisions so cited (supra).

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since Petitioner made a wrong claim before the authority by saying that he is a contractual employee, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim by treating him to a daily wager / temporary engagee by following the decisions in the case of

// 4 //

Jaggo, Shripal Dharam Singh & Bhola Nath, without being influenced by the earlier rejection which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the citations so cited (supra) before Opposite Party No.3 for compliance. Till a decision is taken, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat

Judge

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2026 13:36:47 Signature Not Verified