Trilochan Mahato vs State Of Odisha & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12877 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   W.P.(C) No. 38887 of 2021


Trilochan Mahato                          .....                 Petitioner
                                                 Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate
                                  Vs.
State of Odisha & others                  .....            Opposite party

                                                     Addl. Govt. Advocate


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                          ORDER

15.12.2021

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

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize his services as per Finance Department Resolution dated 04.09.2012 taking into account his continuous service of more than 30 years and in terms of the principle decided in Secretary State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as casual labour and conferred with Ty Status and continuing under the administrative control of opposite party no.4. He has already rendered more than 28 years of service and therefore, seeks for regularization of services in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others v. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006 and in the case of Nihal Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 3547 so also in Prem Singh v. State of U.P., (2019) 10 SCC 516.

5. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner has rendered service for more than 30 years on monthly remuneration basis. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio decided in the cases cited supra. In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of this Writ Petition directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services keeping in view the judgment in the case of Umadevi, M.L. Kesari, Nihal Singh and Prem Singh (supra) and also the resolution of the Finance Department dated 04.09.2012, within a period of four months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner and grant consequential service benefits as due admissible to him.

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

7. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE