Jagadish Gouda vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8504 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.P.(C) No. 23761 of 2021

Jagadish Gouda                                .....                         Petitioner
                                                          Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1,
                                                                          Advocate
                                        Vs.
State of Odisha and others                    .....                   Opposite parties
                                                                      State Counsel


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                           ORDER

13.08.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.

The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service taking into account his continuous service, as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been continuing as Driver in the office of the Assistant Director, Horticulture, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam with effect from 05.05.2011 on DLR basis. In the meantime, as the posts of Driver have been sanctioned, the service 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 sanctioned post of Driver and in the meantime he has completed more than 10 years of service and even though his appointment is irregular, he should be regularized in service in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L.Keshari mentioned 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. Furthermore, in W.P.(C) No.10100 of 2010 filed by Dhruba Charan Nayak of Paradeep Municipality, this Court passed similar order on 07.07.2017 and pursuant thereto the benefit has already been extended to the petitioner therein.

In view of such position, the opposite parties are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner and grant all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of an authenticated/certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Ashok                                    (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                JUDGE