Orissa High Court
Ajay Kumar Sahoo & Others vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 15 May, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 22321 of 2020
Ajay Kumar Sahoo & others .... Petitioners
Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:29.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.05.2026
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners with a
direction to the opposite party to forthwith issue orders of
regularization of their services as Drivers in the
establishment with effect from 17th September, 2013 in the
scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of
Rs.1500/- with usual allowances admissible as per G.A.
Department Resolution dated 17th September, 2013 in the
same manner as other similarly situated contractual Drivers
have been allowed in terms of Annexure-4 series and the
decisions of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka & others Vrs. Umadevi (3) & others (2006) 4
SCC 1 and State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L.
Kesari & others (2010) 9 SCC 247 besides the order in
W.P.(C) No.20629 of 2020.
2. The petitioners were allowed to continue as DLR Drivers
in Finance Department until 28th February, 2006 and
Page 1 of 20
thereafter, they were posted as Direct Contractual Drivers
w.e.f. 1st March, 2006 to 31st August, 2006 vide office
order dated 9th March, 2006 of the Finance Department and
after 31st August, 2006, they continued in their posts with
enhanced consolidated remuneration and thereafter, their
further engagement was extended on annual contract basis.
During the continuance of their services, the G.A.
Department Resolution dated 17th September, 2013 arrived,
it is pleaded that since all of them fulfilled the
conditions/criteria stipulated therein, upon completion of
six years of contractual service, are entitled to regular
appointment with only formal orders issued in their favour.
It is claimed that in view of the Resolution (supra), in
various departments of the Government, contractual
employees including the Drivers and their services have
been regularized after completion of six years of
continuous service. The claim is that the petitioners are
similarly situated and hence, are to be extended parity.
Referring to the regularization of service of contractual
employees pursuant to the decision in O.A. No.2172 (C) of
2015 and batch of cases decided on 17th May, 2017 upheld
in W.P.(C) No.6661 of 2018 and finally by the Apex Court
on 6th August, 2018 and in compliance thereof, the Data
Entry Operators (DEOs) in the Commercial Tax
Organization have been regularized with retrospective
effect, but the petitioners were denied and for that they
filed O.A. No.528 of 2016, 530 of 2016 and 531 of 2016,
which were disposed of with a direction to consider their
representation and to take a decision keeping in view the
Page 2 of 20
guidelines laid down in Umadevi (3) (supra), but once
again, O.A. Nos.4364(C), 4365 (C) & 4368 (C) of 2016
had to be filed and thereafter, upon abolition of the
Tribunal and transfer of the O.As to this Court, all are
pending disposal. In the meantime, the present writ petition
was filed demanding regularization with the claim that the
petitioners have put more than 10 years of satisfactory
services having an unblemished career continued without
judicial intervention and orders, hence, are eligible in their
respective posts in terms of the G.A. Department
Resolution dated 17th September, 2013.
3. Perused the pleadings on record.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
5. The contention is that the petitioners‟ services are to be
regularized as per the G.A. Department Resolution dated
17th September, 2013. It is contended that in Dharam
Singh & others Vrs. State of U.P. & another 2025 INSC
998, the Apex Court following its judgments in Jaggo Vrs.
Union of India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
and Shripal and another Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 read with Umadevi (3) (supra)
issued direction to ensure fairness in public employment.
Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners cited a
decision dated 12th April, 2023 of this Court in W.A.
No.777 of 2021 upholding the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.19951 of 2020 (Patitapaban Dutta Dash & others
Vrs. State of Odisha & others) following which
Page 3 of 20
regularization of DEOs working in different Tehsils of the
State was directed and confirmed by the Apex Court in
SLP(C) No.17482 of 2023 (State of Odisha & another
Vrs. Bidyadhar Biswal & others). Similarly, in W.P.(C)
No.11745 of 2022 (Tusar Ranjan Satapathy Vrs. State
of Odisha & others) disposed of 30th July, 2025, this Court
followed the decision in Jaggo (supra) and also Shripal
(supra) read with Umadevi (3) (supra) and directed
regularization of Group-„D‟ employees. Mr. Tripathy,
learned counsel further contends that the petitioners are
equally placed and hence, are not to be discriminated
against. The decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.24545 of
2021 dated 16th August, 2024 (Bijay Kishore Nath &
others Vrs. State of Odisha & another) is also cited and
therein the direction was to the regularization of the
services of the Drivers in the establishment of CT& GST
with similar orders followed in Panchanan Dalai & others
Vrs. State in W.P.(C) No.24541 of 2021.
6. Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahu, learned AGA for
the State. The pleading of the State is that they were
engaged on a daily wage basis and therefore, cannot claim
continuity in service and regular appointment, as such
engagement could be terminated at any time without prior
notice admitting the fact that the services are contractual
and on monthly remuneration basis in the posts of Drivers.
An objection is raised vis-a-vis regularization of services of
the petitioners, who joined as DLR Drivers, in terms of the
G.A. Department Resolution dated 17th September, 2013
Page 4 of 20
with the pleading that it does not apply to them as such
contractual appointments must have been on abolition of
corresponding regular posts or against newly created
regular posts with concurrence of the Finance Department.
The decisions referred to from the side of the petitioners
are also countered with a pleading that the case laws in
Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari (supra) are inapplicable.
Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in State of
Rajasthan & others Vrs. Dayalal & others (2011) 2 SCC
429, the further pleading is that in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court ought
not to issue direction for regularization, absorption or
permanent continuance, unless anyone of them had been
appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in
accordance with relevant Rules within an open competitive
process held against the sanctioned posts.
7. Gone through the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners.
8. The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to
regularization of their services according to the Resolution
dated 17th September, 2013? Before considering the rival
contentions of the parties, the Court is inclined to refer to
the relevant extract of Resolution (supra) and the same is as
follows. The contractual appointments/engagements made
against contractual posts created with the concurrence of
Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding
regular posts or contractual appointments/engagements
made against contractual posts created with the
concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of
Page 5 of 20
any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for
strengthening of the existing offices/services, following the
recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding
regular posts and the principle of reservation of Posts and
services for different categories of persons decided by the
State Government from time to time. xxx Regular
Appointments: On the date of satisfactory completion of
six years of contractual service or from the date of
publication of this Resolution, whichever is later, they shall
be deemed to have been regularly appointed. A formal
order of regular appointment shall be issued by the
appointing authority.
9. It was followed by the Resolution dated 16th January,
2014 of the G.A Department, Govt. of Odisha and therein,
the following are the mandatory eligibility conditionalities
for regularization of contractual appointees/engagements
have been stipulated, such as, (i) the contractual
appointments/engagements must have been made against
contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance
Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts
or contractual posts created with the concurrence of
Finance Department without abolition of any
corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for
strengthening of the existing offices/services; (ii) such
contractual appointments must have been made following
the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding
regular posts; and (iii) principle of reservation of posts
must have been followed in case of such contractual
Page 6 of 20
appointments/engagements. In other words, no contractual
appointee shall be eligible for regular appointment as per
the aforesaid Resolution unless the eligibility
conditionalities described above are fulfilled.
10. Referring to the Resolution as above and since the
conditions stipulated therein are said not to have been
fulfilled, the opposite parties objected to the regularization
of services of the petitioners. The denial to the
regularization of services is based on the conclusion that
there has been no regular recruitment process held in
respect of the petitioners and that the principles of
reservation have not been followed. The question whether
on any such grounds the petitioners can be denied
regularization of services? The plea of the opposite parties
is that in absence of regular recruitment with open
advertisement, the petitioners cannot claim for
regularization of their services nor the case of the
petitioners demanding regularization can be considered in
juxtaposition to the objection on record.
11. The Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) held and
observed in the following words:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa
(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071, R.N.
Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409: (1972) 2 SCR 799
and B.N. Nagarajan (1979) 4 SCC 507:1980 SCC
(L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR 937 and referred to in para
15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
Page 7 of 20
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for ten years
or more but without the intervention of orders of the
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation
of the services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles
settled by this Court in the cases above referred to
and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the
Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a
one-time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more
in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of
orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that
require to be filled up, in cases where temporary
employees or daily wagers are being now
employed. The process must be set in motion within
six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularisation, if any already made, but not sub
judice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further bypassing
of the constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per
the constitutional scheme."
12. In M.L. Kesari (supra), the Apex Court held and
concluded as hereunder:
"8. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 casts a duty upon
the Government or instrumentality concerned, to
take steps to regularise the services of those
irregularly appointed employees who had served
for more than ten years without the benefit or
protection of any interim orders of courts or
tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi (3)
Page 8 of 20
(2006) 4 SCC 1 directed that such one-time
measure must be set in motion within six months
from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-
2006).
13. The Division Bench of the High Court has
directed that the cases of the respondents should be
considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs to be given, in view of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, as a general one-time regularisation exercise, to find out whether there are any daily-wage/casual/ad hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfil the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. If they fulfil them, their services have to be regularised. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of Respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one- time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfil the requirements of para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years' service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularisation in suitable lower posts."
13. In Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar & others (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Apex Court held and concluded that there is an expression of general principle against the Page 9 of 20 regularization enunciated in Umadevi (3) (supra) if the following conditions are fulfilled and stated as hereunder:
"11. Elaborating upon the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) case (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247:
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826, this Court held as under:
"7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against „regularisation‟ enunciated in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753, if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."
Page 10 of 2012. Applying the ratio of Umadevi (3) case (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753, this Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 14 SCC 65: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 85 directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of Punjab holding as under:
"35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the Executive Government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the Executive Government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State.
36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However, in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently, no such Page 11 of 20 demand has ever been made by the State. The result is the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks."
13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularisation viz. one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of clerk was regularised w.e.f. 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 3-1-2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits to be paid from 1-1-2010.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served the University for more than 29 years in the post of Night Guard and that he has served the College on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the authorities are directed to regularise the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3-1-2002 (the date on which he rejoined the post as per the direction of the Registrar)."
14. In Jaggo (supra), the Apex Court highlighted upon the misuse of temporary employment particularly in Page 12 of 20 Government institutions leading multifaceted force of exploitation. It would be apposite to make a mention of the observation made in the above decision and the same is reproduced herein below:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social International Labour Organization- Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy. security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly Page 13 of 20 in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of "temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an Page 14 of 20 institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual "even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially Page 15 of 20 in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. xxx
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
15. The Apex Court in Shripal (supra) concluded that the decision of Umadevi (3) (supra) cannot be served as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. It is also held therein that Indian labour law strongly disfavours perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. It has also been held therein that bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period and therefore, the employer was directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularization of their services within a Page 16 of 20 stipulated period considering their continuous service and performance of perennial duties akin to the permanent posts and while assessing such regularization, the employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively.
16. Keeping in view the case laws cited and discussed hereinabove, this Court is to consider whether the petitioners‟ services should have been regularized by the authority concerned. It is a fact that the petitioners have been rendering their services in Finance Department as DLR and thereafter as Direct Contractual Drivers for more than 21 years. The Government, of course, with the terms and conditions of contractual service, engaged the petitioners but such engagement in service has been continuously and without break. The services of the petitioners‟ continued and extended from time to time and for regularization of their services, the conditions laid down in Umadevi (3) (supra), according to the Court, are to be fulfilled and as all of them worked for more than 10 years in duly sanctioned posts and that the appointments are not illegal though may be said as irregular. The only rider is that if the appointments are not made in sanctioned posts and where the persons appointed had no prescribed minimum qualification, such appointments shall have to be treated as illegal. In Umadevi (3) (supra), it has been categorically held that where the persons employed possess prescribed qualification and are working against the sanctioned posts and selected without undergoing process Page 17 of 20 of open competitive selection, such appointments are to be considered as legal.
17. In the case at hand, it is pleaded that the initial appointment has not been against sanctioned posts and there was no regular recruitment held nor the principle of reservation was applied. The contractual appointment of the petitioners is obviously with the concurrence of the Finance Department. But according to the State, the appointments have not been against sanctioned posts. The claim of regularization is also objected for no regular recruitment having taken place. Any such bypassing the routine recruitment process is not illegal but has to be treated as irregular and in that case, on such ground, regularization in service cannot be opposed. Not having the occasion to apply the reservation rules cannot even a ground objecting the demand towards regularization. In the case of the petitioners, all of them have rendered service for more than 10 years uninterruptedly without any judicial intervention and orders. The nature of service rendered by the petitioners is undoubtedly perennial in nature. By allowing someone to work for so many years and not even undertaking or deferring regular recruitment for long is a practice which has been deprecated by the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra) as „ad hocism‟ is strikingly opposed to a decent labour practice. The undertakings submitted by such an employee at the time of initial appointment cannot be used as weapon and directed against him when demand for regularization is received. So, any such stand of the State Page 18 of 20 challenging the request for regularization by the petitioners referring to the initial conditions in the appointment orders is unjustified.
18. Since the petitioners have been given contractual appointments, it is assumed that there was concurrence of the Finance Department. Without a post being sanctioned, a contractual appointment is not going to take place. But no details of any sanctioned posts available by then when contractual appointments were made are pleaded on record. If such is the case and there is difficulty in the regularization of services of the petitioners for their appointments having not taken place against regular posts necessary in terms of the Resolutions (supra), this Court is of the considered view that they should be absorbed and accommodated with creation of supernumerary posts having rendered service for more than 20 years by now. According to the Court, contractual appointment is to be avoided at the earliest to prevent exploitation after a long- term service which is also prejudicial to the life and career of someone so appointed having no certainty. The side effects of prolonged contractual engagements have been highlighted upon in Jaggo and Sripal (supra). Having worked for so many years, a legitimate expectation with the services being regularized in future may rightfully arise notwithstanding the contractual appointments. Having said that, the Court is of the humble view that if the regularization of the petitioners is not happening in terms of the Resolutions of 2013 and 2014 only for not being Page 19 of 20 appointed against regular posts, in their greater interest, having rendered services for so long over two decades, it shall have to be accomplished by creating supernumerary posts especially when the appointments are not illegal and continuity in service is not pursuant to any judicial order, which arrived only in 2020. Otherwise, if it has been contractual appointments against regular posts, regularization of services of the petitioners is necessarily to be carried out in accordance with the Resolutions (supra) on the premise that the engagement without a regular recruitment is just irregular and not illegal notwithstanding the fact that the reservation rules could not be applied.
19. Accordingly, it is ordered.
20. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the directions hereinabove for compliance vis-à-vis regularization of services of the petitioners against the posts of Driver in the establishment under the Finance Department at the earliest with an exercise concluded preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-May-2026 18:01:54 Page 20 of 20