JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 9th August, 2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2045 of 2015 and O.A. No.1372 of 2015 are under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the Annexure-6 in the original application but however directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the proposal which has been sent before the High Power Committee vide letter No.26130 dated 1.12.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case in brief is that the petitioners were working as Sweeper in different Primary Health Centers and Community Health Centers on contractual basis on monthly consolidated remuneration of Rs.1200/-, subsequently it has enhanced to Rs.4500/- and sought for their regularization in view of the Government decision which provides that the case of such sweepers who have completed six years of continuous service on contract service can be considered for regularization. According to the petitioners, the opposite parties have sent a list of 35 persons including the name of the petitioners for their regularization under Group-D category. The case of only 22 candidates have been considered vide letter dated 3.3.2014 those who have entered in the year 2006 ignoring the case of the petitioners and these 22 persons have entered six years later than the petitioners, hence they have approached the Tribunal on the ground that since they have already discharged their duty for a continuous period of 15 years without any interim order passed by any court of law and as such as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vrs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , they are entitled to be regularized in service. 3. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , they are entitled to be regularized in service. 3. The applicants have approached the Tribunal on earlier occasion by filing different original applications which were disposed of vide order dated 08.09.2014 with direction to the opposite party no.2, the Director, Health Services, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, but however their claim has been rejected while the rejection order passed on 27.04.2015 on the ground that they were not fulfilling the stipulation in the guidelines for regularization made by the General Administration Department Resolution No.26108/GAD dated 17.09.2014, however a proposal has been sent to the High Power Committee vide letter dated 01.12.2014 for consideration. 4. The applicants being aggrieved with the same has approached the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order dated 27.04.2015 with an observation that a proposal has been sent to the High Power Committee vide letter No.26130 dated 1.12.2014 for consideration, hence directed the High Power Committee to take decision within a stipulated period. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have come in service in the year 2000 and discharging their duties continuously as Sweeper, it is also not in dispute that 22 persons working on contract basis along with these petitioners have come in service in the year 2006. The petitioners have approached the authority for regularization of their service in Class-IV post since they are working as Sweeper since long i.e. about more than 16 years and since they are working for such a long period, they are entitled to be regularized in service. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the authority on 27.04.2015 which has been challenged before the Tribunal however, the Tribunal without interfering with the decision of the authority and considering the fact that the authority has sent a proposal for regularization of these petitioners before the High Power Committee vide letter dated 01.12.2014, has directed to take decision within a period of four weeks. 6. It is informed to this Court by placing the order passed on 25.7.2017 by Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government vide Memo dated 10.08.2017 filed under the signature of learned Addl. 6. It is informed to this Court by placing the order passed on 25.7.2017 by Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government vide Memo dated 10.08.2017 filed under the signature of learned Addl. Government Advocate and from its perusal, it is evident that before the High Power Committee the candidature of 33 candidates were placed before the State authorities for consideration of their case for regularization, out of which the recommendation of regularization has been made by the High Power Committee with respect to 22 persons who according to the High Power Committee has found suitable for regularization. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary accepting the recommendation of the High Power Committee has rejected the grievance of the petitioner by passing the order dated 25.07.2017, however the said order is not under challenge, since it has never been communicated to the petitioners rather it has been brought on record by virtue of memo dated 10.08.2017 i.e. on the date of final disposal of the writ petition. 7. We, instead of asking these petitioners to challenge the order by making adjournment, have thought it proper to scrutinize the order passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary dated 25.07.2017 and from its perusal, it is evident that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary has assigned four reasons i.e. (1) The petitioners have not been recruited against any sanctioned post but engaged as per recommendations of the village committee as sweeper on daily wage basis. (2) As the cleaning and sweeping work is a casual work but not a whole day work, to meet such recruitment the petitioners have been engaged on daily wage basis without following recruitment Rule and ORV Act. (3) At no point of time the petitioners were appointed against a contractual post created with concurrence of finance Deptt. On abolition of a regular vacant post. Hence the question of regularization of the applicants does not arise. (4) The Respondent no.3 had recommended the name of 33 (thirty three) persons erroneously and on the basis of the recommendation of the Respondent No.2 the High Power Committee had approved the name of 22 (twenty two) persons who were found suitable. 8. Hence the question of regularization of the applicants does not arise. (4) The Respondent no.3 had recommended the name of 33 (thirty three) persons erroneously and on the basis of the recommendation of the Respondent No.2 the High Power Committee had approved the name of 22 (twenty two) persons who were found suitable. 8. The case of the petitioners is that when they have come in service in 2000, their service has not been regularized while the persons who have entered in service in 2006 has been regularized, but this fact has not been discussed in the order dated 25.07.2017 rather the stipulation has been made that these petitioners have not been recruited against any sanctioned post but they were engaged only on daily wage basis on the recommendation of the village committee to meet the urgency of different PHC they were engaged without following the recruitment procedure and ORV Act and not appointed against contractual post created with the concurrence of the Finance Department and taking into consideration these grounds, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. 9. We, after considering the fact that the persons who have come in service in the year 2006 have been regularized, there is no reference as to whether these persons are appointed against sanctioned post and what is the mode of their appointment whether their appointment has been made by following due procedure or after following the provisions of ORV Act or with the concurrence of the Finance Department, has not been reflected and as such the said order cannot be sustainable in the eye of law, since in absence of any reference regarding those persons who have come in service in the year 2006, why these petitioners who have entered in service in the year 2000 have been subjected to discrimination. 10. According to us, the reason of rejection must be known to the aggrieved party that too when the other set of persons have been regularized denying the benefit of regularization to another set of persons whose grievance has been rejected, has a right to know the reason then only it will be said to be an order in the eye of law, otherwise the order is said to be non-speaking. 11. 11. In our considered view, the matter needs a fresh look by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government and pass a speaking order making reference of these persons who have entered in service in the year 2006 have been granted benefit of regularization in service while the petitioners are discriminated. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary is directed to pass an order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order which shall be communicated to the petitioners forthwith. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.