Orissa High Court
2 30.03.2021 Heard Mr. B. Mansingh vs Unknown on 30 March, 2021
W.P.( C.M.P.
W.P.(C).No.11085
No.1360 of 2015of 2021
2 30.03.2021 Heard Mr. B. Mansingh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. B. Mansingh, learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner has been continuing as Dealing Asst-cum-C.O.).
in Biramitrapur Municipality with effect from 18.02.1997 against
sanctioned post for which the services 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
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
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
-2-
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 sanctioned post of Tax Collector and completed more
than 24 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.LP. was dismissed.
Consequentially, the State authorities issued 3 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.
..................................
BISWANATH RATH,J
sks
