Orissa High Court
Siba Sindriya vs State Of Odisha & Anr on 28 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2570 OF 2022
Siba Sindriya ..... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1,
Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite party
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
8.01.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.
2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to
the opposite parties to regularize his services in the post of Sweeper
taking into account his continuous service, as expeditiously as possible.
4. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the petitioner has been continuing against the sanctioned posts under
opposite party Jharsuguda Engineering School, but till date he has not
been regularized, although he has already rendered 29 years service 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 as
Sweeper under opposite party Jharsuguda Engineering School and even
though his appointment is irregular he should be regularized in service
in view of the judgments 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.
6. In view of such position, opposite party no.2 is directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services
within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition
is allowed.
8. 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)
JUDGE
