Orissa High Court
Indra Maharana vs State Of Odisha And Anr on 16 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23920 of 2021
Indra Maharana .... Petitioner
Mr. B.S.Tripathy-1,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Anr. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P.Panda,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
16.08.2021
Order No.
02. 1. Heard submissions of Mr. B.S.Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.P.Panda, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
2. The writ petition involves the following prayer:
"On the facts and in the circumstances stated above,
your petitioners, therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to direct the opp. Party no.2 to issue a formal order of
appointment regularizing the services of the petitioner as Peon
in the establishment under opp. Party no.2 with effect from
21.01.2003 as per Finance Dept. Resolution dt.15.05.1997 as
per Annexure-2 or in the alternate w.e.f. 17.09.2013 on
completion of six years of satisfactory service as per the law
laid down by the Apex in the case of State of Karnataka
Vrs. Umadevi(3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of
Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247
read with GA Department resolution dtd.17.09.2013 read with
judgment dtd.07.08.2020 of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C)
No.17937 of 2020 as finally upheld by the Apex Court under
Annexure-6 series with all consequential service and
monetary benefits and pass such other order(s) as would be
deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play
and for which act of your kindness, the petitioner shall as in
duty bound, ever pray."
3. Petitioner pressing for above reliefs relies on the decision of the
similar judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17937 of 2020 being
confirmed by Hon'ble apex Court through W.A.No.817 of 2020 and upon
// 2 //
dismissal of SLP (C) No.7328 of 2021, this Court in disposal of the writ
petition directs opposite party no.2 to consider the claim of the petitoner
taking into account the applicability of above decision to the case at hand
by undertaking the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the
date of direction of this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner is still in
job, his position may not be disturbed for the final order is passed
pursuant to this Court's direction. It is stated here that while considering
the authority shall also keep in mind that the petitioner has already
worked almost 28 years in the same establishment. Let one extra copy of
the writ petition be served on learned counsel for the opposite parties
within three working days. Petitioner is also directed to serve copy of this
order along with copy of the writ petition hereinabove for necessary
action at their end.
4. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
