Orissa High Court
Nrusingha Charan Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 12 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 17544 of 2021
Nrusingha Charan Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Dash, Adv.
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
12.08.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
03.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. P.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the petitioner has been continuing as Part Time Sweeper-cum-
Night Watchman at Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary (GAD), Retanga
in the district of Khordha at daily wage basis since 1997. In the
meantime, as the post of Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman has
been sanctioned, the services of the petitioner should be
regularized against the said post. 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
against a sanctioned post of Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman and
completed more than 24 years of service and even though his
appointment is irregular he should be regularized in service in
view of the judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi (supra) and
M.L.Keshari (supra).
It is of relevance to note that in a similar case, in respect of
Angul Municipality, this Court vide order dated 27.11.2014 in
W.P.(C) No. 26860 of 2013 directed the opposite parties to
regularize the services of the petitioner therein in view of the
judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi (supra) and
M.L.Keshari (supra). Against the said order dated 27.11.2014
the State of Odisha, as well as Angul Municipality preferred W.A.
No. 407 of 2015 which was dismissed on 19.01.2016. Against the
order dated 19.01.2016 passed in W.A. No. 407 of 2015, the
State as well as Angul Municipality filed S.L.P. before the apex
Court and by a common order dated 13.05.2016 the S.L.P. was
dismissed. Consequentially, the State authorities issued office
order dated 06.06.2016 for regularizing the petitioner in the said
writ application.
In view of such position, the opposite parties are directed to
regularize the service of the petitioner 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.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI,)
A.K. Rana JUDGE
