Bhadra Biswal & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 12116 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                    W.P.(C) No.36671 OF 2021

Bhadra Biswal & Anr.                          .....                  Petitioners
                                                            Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1,
                                                                       Advocate
                                      Vs.
State of Odisha & Anr.                        .....              Opposite party
                                                           Addl. Govt. Advocate


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                              ORDER

24.11.2021 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize their services in the posts of Asst. Tax Sarkar taking into account their continuous service, as expeditiously as possible.

4. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have been continuing against the sanctioned posts under opposite party Belpahar Municipality, but till date they have not been regularized, although petitioners no.1 & 2 have already rendered 25 years service in the meantime. 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 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 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."

5. In that view of the matter, since the petitioners are continuing as Asst. Tax Sarkar under opposite party Belpahar Municipality and even though their appointment is irregular they should be regularized in service in view of the judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L.Keshari (supra), as well as Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.

6. In view of such position, opposite party no.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is allowed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE