Orissa High Court
Kartik Chandra Rout & Ors vs State Of Odisha And Ors on 22 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 2625 of 2001
Kartik Chandra Rout & Ors. .... Petitioners
Mr. S. Patra, Advocate
-Versus -
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opp. Parties
.
Mr. M. Balabantaray,
Standing Counsel for the State
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
22.11.2021
Order No.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioners, who are working in the work charge
establishment, have filed this writ petition to be brought over to
regular establishment after completion of five years of service and
they should be appointed in regular post and granted all benefits
as due and admissible to them in accordance with law, including
pension/pensionary benefits taking into account their entire period
of service.
4. Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that in the year 2001 though 14 petitioners had approached the
tribunal by filing this application, but in the meantime some of
them have expired, some of them have already retired and some
of them are continuing, but they have not yet been brought over to
the regular establishment though stand at par with their
counterparts who had filed O.A. No. 2559(C) of 1999 (Kasidev
Maharana v. State of Orissa & Ors.) and batch disposed of vide
order dated 16.11.1999, which has been confirmed by this Court
vide order dated 08.01.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 7246 of 2016
and re-affirmed by the apex Court vide order dated 30.07.2018
passed in Diary No.23207 of 2018, and that the said order of the
tribunal has been implemented pursuant to the common judgment
dated 27.07.2021 passed by this Court in CONTC (CPC) No. 305
of 2000 and batch. It is also further contended that in the above
eventuality, let the petitioners file an application individually
before the authority concerned seeking relief which has already
been granted to similarly situated persons, so that the authority
can consider the same in the light of the order passed by the
tribunal, as mentioned above.
5. Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State
contended that since it is an old case of the year 2001, after
abolition of the tribunal he is not possessed with the record.
However, if the petitioners are working in the work charge
establishment and they want to be brought over to the regular
establishment and such question has already been considered by
the tribunal in the cases, referred to above, then their grievances
can be considered by the authority concerned in the light of the
order passed by the tribunal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court is of the considered view that since
the petitioners were working in the work charge establishment and
they want to come over to regular establishment, their cases
require consideration in the light of the orders dated 16.11.1999
passed by the tribunal in O.A. No. 2559(C) of 1999 and batch,
which has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated
08.01.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 7246 of 2016 and re-affirmed by
the apex Court vide order dated 30.07.2018 passed in Diary
No.23207 of 2018, in view of implementation of the order of the
tribunal pursuant to the common judgment dated 27.07.2021
passed by this Court in CONTC (CPC) No. 305 of 2000 and
batch. Consequentially, this Court directs that if the petitioners
file individual applications/representations before the authority
concerned within two weeks hence, the same shall be considered
in the light of the order passed by the tribunal, referred to above,
as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the applications/
representations.
7. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
GDS
