Orissa High Court
Chapadhari Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Anr on 2 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21187 OF 2021
Chapadhari Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Satpathy, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite party
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
02.08.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up by video conferencing
mode.
Heard Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
direction to the opposite parties to regularize his
services taking into account his continuous service, as
expeditiously as possible.
Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the petitioner has been continuing
against the sanctioned post of Junior Typist under
opposite party no.2-Orissa Bridge & Construction
Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar, but till date he has not
been regularized, although more than 31 years have
passed in the meantime. He has referred to the case of
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1,
wherein in paragraph 53, the apex Court has held that
the State Governments and their instrumentalities
should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure
the services of such irregularly appointed who have
worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts.
Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in
State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Keshari and
others, 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982, wherein in paragraph 7
the apex Court has held as follows :
"7. It is evident from the above that there is an
exception to the general principles against 'regularization'
enunciated in Umadevi 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 possesses 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."
In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is
continuing as Junior Typist under opposite party no.2-
Orissa Bridge & Construction Corporation Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar and completed 31 years of service in the
meantime and even though his appointment is
irregular he should be regularized in service in view of
the judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi and
M.L.Keshari (supra), as well as Amarkanti Rai v.
State of Bihar and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.
In view of such position, the opposite party no.2
is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization of his service within a period of three
months from the date of passing of this order.
With the aforesaid observation and direction the
writ petition is allowed.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19
situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties
may utilize a print out of the order available in the High
Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to
attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner
prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th
March, 2020, as modified by Court's notice no. 4798
dated 15th April, 2021.
Alok
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
