Orissa High Court
Arati Nayak vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 15 September, 2022
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23157 of 2022
Arati Nayak .... Petitioner
Sudhanshu Sekhar Pratap, Adv.
-versus-
State of Orissa and Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Debasis Mohapatra, SC
(for S & ME Deptt.)
Mr. D. Mund, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 15.09.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner who is serving as
an Assistant Teacher (TGT) in Municipal Government
High School, Choudwar, in the district of Cuttack, has
prayed to quash the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the
Opposite Party No.5/ District Education Officer, Cuttack.
She further prayed for a direction from this Court to the
Opposite Parties to regularize her service with effect from
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
28.02.2004
instead of 12.08.2016 as per the Resolution
dated 28th February, 2004 of the Housing and Urban
Development Department, Government of Odisha,
Bhubaneswar. She also prayed for a direction to the
Opposite Parties to disburse all consequential benefits as
due and admissible in her favour within a stipulated
time.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar
issue in the case of Harapriya Patra -vrs. State of Odisha
and Ors. vide common judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed
in WPC (OAC) No.2709 of 2016 and batch of Writ
Petitions. Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may
be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the
case of Harapriya Patra (supra).
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Department of
School and Mass Education submits that he has no
objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the
judgment passed in the case of Harapriya Patra (supra).
6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in
the case of Harapriya Patra (supra), it appears that
similar issue has already been decided by this Court in
// 3 //
the said judgment which was disposed of on 25.08.2022.
The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows.
"63. Therefore, this Court is inclined to iterate
that the Petitioner has been appointed in the
post of Trained Graduate Post since 24.01.1994
and has served more than 28 years as Trained
Graduate Teacher against a substantive vacant
post. The State Government itself in its
Resolution No.4942 dated 28.02.2004 under
Clause-7 decided to declare the Non-Regular
Teaching and Non-teaching staff as regular
Government Servant as on date of takeover i.e.
on 28.02.2004. Therefore, when the
Government itself has decided to regularise the
service of the staffs like the present Petitioner
and declare them as Government Servant, no
departure from the same will be permissible in
the law and it is incumbent on the part of the
Opposite Parties to provide regular service
benefits as due and admissible to the present
Petitioner with effect from the date of her initial
joining as Trained Graduate Teacher.
64. In light of the above-mentioned facts and
precedents cited hereinabove, the Court is not
inclined to allow for the regularization of the
service of the Petitioner from 1994. The
Opposite Parties are hereby directed to
regularize the services of the Petitioner from the
date of Government resolution i.e. 28.02.2004
and extend the benefits for the same.
65.Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are
disposed of. "
// 4 //
7. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is
disposed of in the light of the common judgment dated
25.08.2022 passed in WPC (OAC) No.2709 of 2016 and
batch of Writ Petitions. The authorities shall examine the
present Writ Petition in the light of the common
judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed in WPC (OAC)
No.2709 of 2016 and if the issue involved therein is
squarely covered in the present case, the authorities shall
consider the Petitioner's case in accordance with law.
8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
B.Jhankar
