Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Dakua vs State Of Odisha And Others on 7 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 37780 of 2021
Prafulla Kumar Dakua ..... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Satapathy, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
07.12.2021
Order No. The matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
has been continuing as NMR basis under the opposite parties, but
till date he has not been regularized, although more than 27 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.
5. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing
as NMR basis and completed 27 years of service in the meantime,
as contended by him, and even though his appointment is
irregular, this writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite
parties to examine the same and take a decision on the
regularization of the petitioner keeping in view of the judgment
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, within a period of three months from the date of passing of
this order.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.)
