Lingaraj Dakua vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12879 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.P.(C) No. 37671 of 2021

Lingaraj Dakua                            .....                    Petitioner
                                                Mr. S. Mohanty-1, Advocate
                                     Vs.
State of Odisha and others              .....                  Opposite parties
                                                               State Counsel

            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                           ORDER

15.12.2021 Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been continuing as daily wage basis under the opposite parties, but till date he has not been regularized, although more than 16 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.

4. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing as daily wage basis and completed 16 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.

5. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.)