Orissa High Court
Prasanna Kumar Roul vs State Of Orissa And Others on 12 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) No.3048 of 2018
Prasanna Kumar Roul .... Petitioner
Mr. Basudev Barik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. YSP Babu, AGA for State
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.04.2022
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
3. The writ petition involves the following prayer:
"(a) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to
regularize the service of the applicant in Class-IV post with
all financial benefits w.e.f. 06.09.1993 when the juniors of
the applicant were regularized in Class-IV post.
(b) And further direct to the Respondents to make
payment all the arrear differential dues after regularized
w.e.f. 06.09.1993 within a stipulated period."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner has
been engaged as Casual Labourer on 24.05.1989 under Live Stock
Breeding and Diary Farm, Khapuria, Cuttack, after going through
the selection process conducted by the Opposite parties. It is further
submitted that even though Petitioner has been working
continuously as a Casual Labour in LBD Farm, Khapuria since the
date of his engagement, but till date his case for regularization has
// 2 //
not been considered from the date i.e. 06.09.1993 his juniors were
regularized. Such action of the Authority is illegal, arbitrary and
uncalled for. However, he has referred to the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported in 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 employees,
who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts.
Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka and others vs. M. L. Keshari and others,
reported in 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982, wherein in paragraph-7, the
Hon'ble 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 possess 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 Petitioner is continuing as a
NMR employee and completed more than 25 years of service in the
// 3 //
meantime and even though his appointment is irregular, he should be
regularized in service in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble apex
Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Keshari (supra) as
well as in the case of Amarkanti Rai vs. State of Bihar and others,
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265. This Court further directs that if it is
found that the persons who are juniors to the Petitioner, have been
regularized, the case of the Petitioner shall also be considered in
terms of the judgments cited hereinabove. The entire exercise shall
be completed within a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
7. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
