Orissa High Court
Sanjay Kishore Samantaray vs State Of Odisha And Others on 21 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 1834 of 2022
Sanjay Kishore Samantaray ..... Petitioner
Mr. R. Roy, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
21.01.2022
Order No. The matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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 and to pay all
consequential service benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
has been continuing as Peon-cum-Night Watcher (Class-IV) on ad
hoc basis under the opposite parties, but till date he has not been
regularized, although more than 27 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
on ad hoc basis and completed 27 years of service in the meantime,
as contended by him, and even though his appointment is irregular,
this writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite parties to
examine the same and take a decision on the regularization of the
petitioner keeping 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, within a period of
three months from the date of passing of this order.
6. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out
of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with
certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in
the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th
March, 2020, as modified by Court's Notice No. 4798 dated 15th
April, 2021, and Court's Office Order circulated vide Memo
Nos.514 and 515 dated 7th January, 2022.
Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.)
