Ghasi Dharei vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10615 Ori

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P.(C) No. 30270 of 2021

Ghasi Dharei                                     .....                        Petitioner
                                                              Mr. P.K. Rout, Advocate
                                           Vs.
State of Odisha and others                       .....                   Opposite parties
                                                                         State Counsel

               CORAM:
                   DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                                  ORDER

04.10.2021 Order No. The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. 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.

3. Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been continuing as a DLR employee under the opposite parties, but till date he has not been regularized, although more than 24 years have passed 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.

4. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing as DLR employee and completed 24 years of service in the meantime 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 (supra), as well as Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.

5. 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.

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI,J.)