Disposed¶6

Purusottam Mahanta v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Sept 2025WP(C)/8508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of contractual MPHW (Male) employees, district Keonjhar; withdrawal of High Power Committee recommendation following Vigilance enquiry into engagement of 62 contractual MPHW (Male); O.P. No.3 letter dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure-B/3) seeking reconsideration; writ petition disposed of with direction to O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision within two months. Keywords: regularization, MPHW (Male), contractual employees, High Power Committee, Vigilance enquiry, Annexure-B/3, Annexure-9, Orissa High Court, W.P.(C).

What did the court decide?

Direction to O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision on the petitioners' claim for regularization benefit, considering the recommendation under Annexure-B/3, within 2 (two) months from receipt of the order; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶6

Purusottam Mahanta Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether a fresh/further decision should be taken on the petitioners' claim for regularization of their contractual services as MPHW (Male), in view of O.P. No.3's letter dated 30.04.2024 under Annexure-B/3 recommending re-consideration, notwithstanding that no decision had been taken after the withdrawal of the earlier High Power Committee recommendation.

¶3.3

Court's answer

Taking into account the subsequent development of O.P. No.3's letter dated 30.04.2024 under Annexure-B/3, this Court directed O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision on the petitioners' claim to get the benefit of regularization, taking into consideration the recommendation available under Annexure-B/3, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Purusottam Mahanta and Others v. State of Odisha and Others, W.P.(C) No.8508 of 2022 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 23.09.2025, Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.). Petitioners, contractual MPHW (Male) in Keonjhar district continuing in service since 2009 (advertisement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure-1), had their regularization recommendation by the High Power Committee withdrawn vide decision of the meeting dated 23.09.2021, communicated vide letter dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure-9), owing to a Vigilance enquiry into engagement of 62 contractual MPHW (Male). Subsequently, O.P. No.3 vide letter dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure-B/3 to counter affidavit) reported that nothing illegal was found in the appointments and requested reconsideration; the learned Addl. Standing Counsel did not dispute that stand. Taking account of this development, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision on the regularization claim considering the Annexure-B/3 recommendation, within two months of receipt of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.8508 of 2022

¶3

Purusottam Mahanta and Others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Order No. 23.09.2025 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

3. It is contended that petitioners while continuing as MPHW (Male) though High Power Committee recommended their claim for regularization, but subsequently, the self-same High Power Committee withdraw the said recommendation vide the impugned decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dated 23.09.2021 so indicated vide letter dated 31.12.2021 under Annexure-9.

¶14

3. 1. It is contended that such a decision was taken by the High Power Committee because of some Vigilance

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

enquiry initiated with regard to engagement of 62 Nos. of contractual MPHW (Male) in the district of Keonjhar.

¶17

3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the documents enclosed as Annexure-B/3 to the counter affidavit filed by O.P. No.3, contended that in the meantime nothing has been found with regard to any illegalities committed with regard to appointment of the petitioners as MPHW (Male) in the district of Keonjhar. Accordingly, vide the said letter, O.P. No.3 has requested the Govt. to re-consider the case of the present petitioners for their regularization in service.

¶18

3. 3. It is further contended that on the face of such request made by O.P. No.3 vide letter dated 30.04.2024 under Annexure-B/3, no further decision has been taken for regularizing the services of the petitioners who are admittedly continuing on contractual basis since 2009, basing on the advertisement issued on 21.02.2008 under Annexure-1.

¶19

4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel also does not dispute the contention raised and the stand taken by O.P. No.3 in his letter dated 30.04.2024 under Annexure-B/3.

¶20

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court taking into account the subsequent development which has taken place with issuance of letter dated 30.04.2024 of

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

O.P. No.3 under Annexure-B/3, directs O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization taking into consideration the recommendation available under Annexure-B/3. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision as directed, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶24

6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶25

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶26

Basudev

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 25-Sep-2025 11:57:11

¶29

Page 3 of 3