Orissa High Court
WP(C)/31503/2020 on 25 January, 2021
W.P.(C) No. 31503 of 2020
I.A. No. 16229 of 2020
03. 25.01.2021 This matter is taken up through video
conferencing.
This interlocutory application has been filed by the
petitioner for modification of order dated 03.12.2020
passed in W.P.(C) No. 31503 of 2020.
Considering the averments made in the application
itself, the order dated 03.12.2020 is recalled and fresh
order is passed in W.P.(C) No. 31503 of 2020.
The interlocutory application stands disposed of.
Ashok .........................................
Dr.B.R.Sarangi,J.
P.T.O.
W.P.(C) No. 31503 of 2020
04. 25.01.2021 The matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Mr. A.K. Mishra-2, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction
to the opposite parties to regularize her service in the post of
Tracer with effect from the date she was brought into the
consolidated scale of pay and further grant all consequential
benefits as due and admissible to the post.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner was initially appointed as DLR Tracer vide order dated
12.08.1996 for a period of 44 days and was allowed to continue
time and again with a break of a day between the engagement.
But subsequently, the petitioner, having requisite qualification,
was appointed against a sanctioned post and paid consolidated
salary of Rs.3150/- with effect from 01.05.2004. As such,
against the said sanctioned post, she was discharging duty
regularly and in the meantime more than 24 years have been
passed. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot say that there
was no vacancy and no post is available. On the other hand,
there is existing vacancy and in which the petitioner is
continuing and discharge the duty. Thereby, since there is need
of work and as such the petitioner discharged the duty on
consolidated salary, her services should have been regularized
against the regular vacancy. It is further contended that the
base level post are being abolished, the petitioner may face
retrenchment, that question does not arise because as per the
Finance Department Resolution only 50% base level post are to
be abolished and the sanctioned post being six, even if 50% base
level post is to be abolished, then three regular posts are in
existence and the petitioner was only person having the
requisite qualification and, as such, she can be adjusted against
that post. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for regularization
should be considered in the light of the judgments passed by the
apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v.
Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1; State of Karnataka
and others v. M.L. Kesari and others, (2010) 9 SCC 247;
State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad, (2014) 7 SCC 223 and
Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265.
Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the parties and after going through the records, it appears
that the petitioner has rendered service for more than 24 years
under the opposite parties. Therefore, the case of the petitioner
is squarely covered by the ratio decided by the apex Court in the
aforesaid judgments mentioned (supra).
In such view of the matter, this Court disposes of this
writ petition directing the opposite parties to consider the case
of the petitioner and regularize her services keeping in view of
the judgments passed by the apex Court in Umadevi (supra),
M.L. Kesari (supra), Kamal Prasad (supra), and Amarkant
Rai (supra) within a period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order and grant all
consequential benefits as due and admissible to her in
accordance with law.
.........................................
Ashok
Dr.B.R.Sarangi,J.
