Orissa High Court
2 11.06.2021 The Matter Is Taken Up ... vs Mr. B. Mansingh on 11 June, 2021
1 of 2021
W.P.C. NO.17451
2 11.06.2021 The matter is taken up through video conferencing
mode.
Heard Mr. B. Mansingh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
Mr. B. Mansingh, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the petitioners have been continuing
as Tax Collector in Banki N.A.C. with effect from
27.07.1995. In the meantime, as the posts of Tax
Collector have been sanctioned, the services of the
petitioners 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
onetime 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
2
continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not
W.P.(C) No. 7457 of 2018 2 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 petitioners are
continuing against sanctioned posts of Tax Collector and
completed more than 25 years of service and even though
their appointments are 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 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
3
S.LP. 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 services of the petitioners 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 print out 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.
Alok
