Orissa High Court
Dhruba Charan Biswal vs State Of Odisha & Others on 11 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 8931 of 2011
Dhruba Charan Biswal ..... Petitioner
(Since dead ) represented
through L.Rs.
Mr. D.K. Panda., Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite parties
Mr. A.K. Mishra, A.G.A.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
11.03.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
25. 2. Heard Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to
quash the order dated 13.09.2010 under Annexure-5 passed by
the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in
O.A. No.1643(C) of 1997 and O.A. No.967(C) of 1998 and
further to direct the opp. parties to bring the petitioner under the
regular establishment retrospectively from the date of issue of
the Office Memorandum dated 06.03.1990 or at least from
22.04.1997 and grant all consequential benefits as due an
admissible, taking into consideration the long service
experience in the work-charged establishment.
4. Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that O.A. No.1643(C) of 1997 was filed challenging
the order of retirement of the petitioner whereas in O.A.
No.967(C) of 1998 was filed claiming for regularization of
service. So far as the relief sought in O.A. No. 1643(C) of 1997
is concerned, the same has already been extended to the
petitioner. But the claim of the petitioner in O.A. No.967(C) of
1998, relates to regularization of his service. As such, while
disposing of both the Original Applications, the Tribunal, vide
common order dated 13.09.2010 held that since both the
Original Applications are inter linked to each other, the relief
cannot be granted to the petitioner. It is further contended that
since the petitioner was working under the work charged
establishment and was brought over to the regular
establishment his case is covered by the judgment of this Court
in W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2008 (State of Orissa & Others -Vrs.-
Jyostna Rani Pattnaik & Others) wherein the order dated 30th
July 2007 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.2655(C) of 2003
has been confirmed and also the judgment of the Single Judge
in WPC (OAC) No.3494 of 2013 (Abhaya Charan Mohanty -
Vrs.- State of Odisha & Others) disposed of on 14.07.2021
relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.22498 of 2012, which was dismissed on 07.01.2013 by
confirming the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377
of 2010 disposed of on 19.12.2011 by which the order passed
by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1189(C) of 2006 has been
confirmed. Therefore, the relief sought for regularization of
service of the petitioner ought to have been granted.
5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the
State contended that since the order of retirement has been
confirmed by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.
No. 1643 (C) of 1997 and the regularization of service are inter
linked to the said order, thereby, the Tribunal is well justified
while passing such order which does not warrant interference
of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, admittedly the regularization of
service vis-a-vis the retirement benefit are two different issues.
As such, since the benefit of retirement has been extended to
the petitioner, there is no justification not to extend the benefit
of regularization as due and admissible to the petitioner in
accordance with law. More so, this question is no more res
integra in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have
been extended the benefit by virtue of the order passed by the
Tribunal which has been confirmed by this Court as well as the
Apex Court.
7. Therefore, this Court while setting aside the impugned
order dated 13.09.2010 under Annexure-5, disposes of this writ
petition directing the opposite parties to extend the benefit of
regularization in favour of the petitioner, in terms of the
judgment passed in the case of Jyostna Rani Pattnaik as well
as Abhaya Charan Mohanty (supra), within a period of four
months from the date of communication of the order.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
...........................
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
.....................................
Alok /Sukanta (SAVITRI RATHO)
JUDGE
