Orissa High Court
2 25.01.2021 The Matter Is Taken Up ... vs Unknown on 25 January, 2021
W.P.(C) No. 36528 of 2020
2 25.01.2021 The matter is taken up through video
conferencing mode.
The petitioners has filed this application seeking
direction to the opposite parties to regularize her
services w.e.f. 28.02.2004 as has been allowed to her
counter parts with all consequential arrear benefits as
due along with superannuation financial and pensionary
benefits by modifying the order No.16249/SME dated
12.08.2016.
It is asserted in the writ petition that the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on high
skilled wages basis in the Berhampur Municipality in the
year 1994 and since then she has been entrusted with
the work of a skilled/semi-skilled employees of different
sections and in the meantime she has completed more
than 26 years of service.
In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006(4)
SCC 1 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
2
'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.
In that view of the matter, since the petitioner
are continuing against sanctioned post and in the
meantime she has completed 26 years of service and
even though their appointment is irregular they should
be regularized in service in view of the judgment of the
apex Court in Umadevi (supra) and M.L.Keshari
(supra).
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
3
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.L.P.
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 Court passed
similar order on 07.07.2017 and pursuant thereto the
benefit has already been extended to the petitioner
therein.
In view of such position, the opposite parties
are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner
and grant all consequential benefits as due and
admissible to them in accordance with law within a
period of three months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation and direction,
the writ petition is allowed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
...............................
Alok
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
