WPC(OAC)/445/2009
2021 Latest Caselaw 6394 Ori

                                 WPC (OAC) No. 445 of 2009




02.   21.06.2021           The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
                           Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
                           The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
                   direction to opposite parties to quash the order dated
                   10.10.2008 under Annexure-9 so far as the applicant is
                   concerned and he further seeks direction to opposite parties
                   to regularize her service as Sweeper and grant minimum
                   scale of pay as admissible to her and the judgment in T.A.
                   No. 56(C)/1993 dated 23.11.1995 may be worked out in her
                   case.
                           Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
                   petitioner has been singled out when some other persons
                   have been granted the benefit of regular scale of pay,
                   therefore, she has approached this Court.
                           Mr.   M.   Balabantaray,   learned   Standing     Counsel
                   appearing for the State submits that the petitioner seeks to
                   quash Annexure-9 dated 10.10.2008 so far relates to the
                   petitioner is concerned, but Annexure-9 does not contain the
                   name of the petitioner, therefore, such relief cannot be
                   granted to the petitioner.
                           Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
                   going through the records, admittedly, vide Annexure-9, the
                   Joint    Secretary   to   Government   passed       an   order   in
                   compliance of order in T.A. No. 56 (C)/93 - Sankarsan Sethy
                   & others -vrs- State and others so far as regularization of 39
                   D.L. workers in the office of the Survey & Map Publication,
                   Orissa, Cuttack is concerned. On perusal of such order it
         appears that the name of the petitioner does not find place
        in the said order, therefore, the relief, which has been
        sought before this Court that order dated 10.10.2008 in
        Annexure-9 be quashed, cannot be granted. More so, if the
        petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 10.10.2008 in
        Annexure-9, she has to make party of those 39 D.L. workers
        who have been regularized. Thereby, the application itself is
        a misconceived and defective one, as such not maintainable.
              In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
        wants to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to pursue
        her remedy before the appropriate forum.
              With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petition stands
        disposed of.
              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)