2 09.06.2021 This Matter Is Taken ... vs Mr. P.K. Rout
2021 Latest Caselaw 6230 Ori

                               W.P.(C) No. 13615 of 2021




02   09.06.2021           This matter is taken up though video conferencing
                  mode.
                          Heard Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                          Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner states
                  that the petitioner has been continuing as a DLR employee
                  under the Executive Engineer, RWSS Division, Jajpur with
                  effect from 11.01.1999, but till date he has not been
                  regularized, although more than 22 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.
                 In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is
        continuing as DLR employee under the Executive Engineer,
        RWSS Division, Jajpur and completed 22 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 and M.L.Keshari (supra), as
        well as Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and others,
        (2015) 8 SCC 265.
                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.


                                 ..................................
                                     DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.

Ajaya