Debasis Prusty & Others vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9310 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              WP(C) No. 25884 of 2021

             Debasis Prusty & others               ....                   Petitioners
                                                           Mr. S. Routray, Advocate

                                               -Versus -
             State of Odisha and others           ....               Opposite Parties
                                                                     State Counsel

                      CORAM:
                       DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                         ORDER

06.09.2021

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioners, who are working as Gram Rojgar Sevaks of Hindol and Odapada Blocks in the district of Dhenkanal, have filed this writ petition seeking for regularization of their services.

4. Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were appointed in substantive posts. In view of the circular dated 3rd March, 2021 of Government of Odisha General Administration and Public Grievance Department, though similarly situated employees, i.e., Computer Programmers vide notification dated 21.08.2018 and Gram Panchayat Technical Assistants (GPTAs) working in different districts vide office order dated 22.09.2018 of Government of Odisha, Panchayati Raj & D.W. Department have been regularized, but the petitioners' services have not been regularized. It is contended that in view of letter issued on 03.03.2021 in Annexure-14, regularization of contractual employees

are being provided, but the petitioners are coming under Clause-B, since they have been appointed prior to commencement of 2013 Rules. Consequentially, their services are to be regularized as per note-(2) of the said decision taken by the Government. More so, if the similarly situated persons have been regularized, there is no valid justifiable reasons not to regularize the services of the petitioners. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition No. 2046 of 2018 (Sachin Ambadas Dawale and others vs. The State of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary Higher and Technical Education and others), which has been confirmed by the apex Court in SLP(C) No. 39014 of 2013 vide order dated 06.01.2015. In view of such position, the petitioners having stood similar footing are entitled to be regularized in terms of the above judgment.

5. Issue notice.

6. Five extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned State Counsel, who appears for opposite parties no.1, 2 and 4 to 6 within three days enabling him to obtain instruction or file counter affidavit.

7. Steps to serve notice on opposite party no.3 by registered post with A.D. be taken within three days. Office shall send notice to the said opposite party fixing a short returnable date.

8. Put up this matter on the date fixed connecting with W.P.(C) No.25882 of 2021.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge Alok