Orissa High Court
WP(C)/13787/2021 on 9 June, 2021
W.P.(C) No. 13787 of 2021
2. 09.06.2021 This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Mr. R.N. Panda, learned counsel for petitioner
and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the opposite
parties.
Mr. R.N. Panda learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the petitioner has been continuing as Driver,
Keonjhar Muncipality since 16.10.2000 on contractual basis
being appointed against a regular post. Therefore, the
service 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.
In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is
continuing against a regular post of Driver and completed
more than twenty years of service and even though his
appointment is irregular he 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 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.
In view of such position, the opposite parties are
directed to regularize the service of the petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of passing of this
order.
With the aforesaid observation and direction the
writ petition is allowed.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19
situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may
utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's
website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by
the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide
Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified
by Court's Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
....................................
Ajaya (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J)
