Orissa High Court
WP(C)/16623/2021 on 11 June, 2021
W.P.(C) No. 16623 of 2021
02. 11.06.2021 The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
Heard Mr. S.K. Jena, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking
direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service
taking into account his continuous service, as
expeditiously as possible.
It is asserted in the writ petition that the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on high
skilled wage basis in the Berhampur Municipality in the
year 1994 and since then he was continuing in service
and in the meantime he has been 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
'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
2
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 sanctioned posts and in the meantime
he has completed more than 26 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 and M.L.Keshari mentioned 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
3
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 service of the petitioner and
grant all consequential benefits as due and admissible to
him in accordance with law within a period of three
months from the date of production of an
authenticated/certified copy 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.
...............................
Ashok
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
