Sudhansu Sekhar Bala vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 11007 Ori

                                       1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                   W.P.(C) No.31669 OF 2021

Sudhansu Sekhar Bala                        .....                     Petitioner

                                                         Mr. Biraja Prasanna
                                                        Satapathy, Advocate
                                    Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                      .....           Opposite parties

                                                                  State Counsel


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                            ORDER

27.10.2021

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

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. 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.

4. Mr. B.P. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been continuing as NMR employee under the opposite parties, but till date he has not been regularized, although more than 42 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.

5. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing as NMR employee and completed 42 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.

6. In view of such position, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service 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