Orissa High Court
Biranchi Narayan Raj vs State Of Odisha And Others on 16 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.38851 of 2021
Biranchi Narayan Raj ..... Petitioner
Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite party
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
16.12.2021
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 service in the
post of Supervisor taking into account his continuous service,
as expeditiously as possible.
3. Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the petitioner has been continuing as Supervisor in
Cuttack Municipal Corporation with effect from 01.02.1994 on
NMR basis. In the meantime, as the posts of Supervisor have
been sanctioned, the serices 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."
4. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is
continuing against a sanctioned post of Supervisor and completed
26 years of service in the meantime and even though his
appointment is irregular he should be regularized in service in
view of the judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi,
M.L.Keshari (supra), as well as Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar
and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.
5. 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.LP. 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
Couort passed similar order on 07.07.2017 and pursuant thereto
the benefit has already been extended to the petitioner therein
6. In view of such position, the opposite parties are directed
to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his
service within a period of three months from the date of passing
of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ
petition is allowed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Alok
