Orissa High Court
Gokulananda Choudhury vs State Of Odisha And Ors on 8 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 1589 of 2005
Gokulananda Choudhury .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus -
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opp. Parties
.
Mr. M. Balabantaray,
Standing Counsel for the State
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
08.02.2022
Order No.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner, who is working in the work charge
establishment, has filed this writ petition to be brought over to
regular establishment after completion of five years of service and
he should be appointed in regular post and granted all benefits as
due and admissible to him in accordance with law, including
pension/pensionary benefits taking into account his entire period
of service.
4. Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner has not yet been brought over to the regular
establishment though he stands at par with his counterparts who
had filed O.A. No. 2559(C) of 1999 (Kasidev Maharana v. State
of Orissa & Ors.) and batch disposed of vide order dated
16.11.1999, which has been confirmed by this Court vide order
dated 08.01.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 7246 of 2016 and re-
affirmed by the apex Court vide order dated 30.07.2018 passed in
Diary No.23207 of 2018, and that the said order of the tribunal
has been implemented pursuant to the common judgment dated
27.07.2021 passed by this Court in CONTC (CPC) No. 305 of
2000 and batch. It is also further contended that in the above
eventuality, let the petitioner file an application before the
authority concerned seeking relief which has already been granted
to similarly situated persons, so that the authority can consider the
same in the light of the order passed by the tribunal, as mentioned
above.
5. Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State
contended that since it is an old case of the year 2001, after
abolition of the tribunal he is not possessed with the record.
However, if the petitioner is working in the work charge
establishment and he wants to be brought over to the regular
establishment and such question has already been considered by
the tribunal in the cases, referred to above, then his grievances can
be considered by the authority concerned in the light of the order
passed by the tribunal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court is of the considered view that since
the petitioner is working in the work charge establishment and he
wants to come over to regular establishment, his case requires
consideration in the light of the orders dated 16.11.1999 passed by
the tribunal in O.A. No. 2559(C) of 1999 and batch, which has
been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2018 passed
in WP(C) No. 7246 of 2016 and re-affirmed by the apex Court
vide order dated 30.07.2018 passed in Diary No.23207 of 2018, in
view of implementation of the order of the tribunal pursuant to the
common judgment dated 27.07.2021 passed by this Court in
CONTC (CPC) No. 305 of 2000 and batch. Consequentially, this
Court directs that if the petitioner files an application/
representation before the authority concerned within two weeks
hence, the same shall be considered in the light of the order
passed by the tribunal, referred to above, as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of the application/ representation.
7. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
Arun
