Pramod Das And Others vs State Of Orissa And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 9416 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          W.P. (C) No. 762 of 2016

Pramod Das and others                      .....                        Petitioners
                                                    Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, Advocate
                                     Vs.
State of Orissa and another                .....                  Opposite parties

                                                     Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                        ORDER

08.09.2021

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

2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize their services as against Group-D posts, as they been functioning and discharging their duties long since, and further seek to quash the letter dated 26.11.2015 under Annexure-8. They further seek direction to the opposite parties to grant all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated time.

3. Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that similarly situated persons have earlier approached this court by filing W.P.(C) Nos.2897, 2899, 2900, 2902, 2903 and 2905 of 2021 (Manorama Sahoo v. State of Odisha and batch of matters) and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 26.02.2021 directing the Development authority to take steps to divert the vacant posts for regular absorption of the petitioners therein in the clear vacant posts at least from the date of posting and they should be provided arrears accordingly. It is further contended that the juniors to the petitioners were also regularized in the meantime and, thereby, the petitioners having stood in the same footing, the benefits should have been extended to them in terms of the

judgment passed by this Court within a stipulated time.

4. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Cuttack Development Authority contended that in compliance of the judgment dated 26.02.2021 passed by this Court in Manorama Sahoo and batch matters mentioned supra, the benefit has already been extended and, as such, the matter has been sent to the Government for approval, which is pending.

5. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court find that the order dated 26.11.2015 under Annexure-8 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite party-Cuttack Development Authority to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Manorama Sahoo and batch matters mentioned supra, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Ashok                                    (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                JUDGE