Orissa High Court
Sabyasachi Mediniray And Others vs Sate Of Odisha And Others on 2 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19513 of 2022
Sabyasachi Mediniray and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Basudev Barik, Advocate
-versus-
Sate of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 02.08.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners with
the following prayers:-
"In the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notice
as to why this case shall not be allowed and the opp.
parties shall not be directed to regularize their services
of the petitioners from the date of appointment, with
other consequential benefits, who are working more
than 20 years as DLR basis by quashing the office order
no.147/1 KL (S)26/2019 dtd. 09.12.2019 Annexure-10
within a stipulated time.
And or pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions directing in this Hon'ble Court may
// 2 //
think fit and proper for the ends of justice."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners that seeking regularization of their service, the Petitioners
had earlier approach this Court by filing a writ petition bearing
W.P.(C) No.18841 of 2019. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 31.10.2019 disposed of the said writ petition directing the
Opposite Party No.3 to treat the writ petition as a representation and
take appropriate decision on the same within two months from the
date of communication of a certified copy of the order. Thereafter,
the Petitioners approached the Opposite Party No.3 with a copy of
the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. However, vide
order dated 9th December, 2019 the representation of the Petitioners
has been rejected on the ground that the Finance Department of
Government of Odisha has regretted the proposal as communicated
by the Government in Forest & Environment Department vide its
letter dated 26.08.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the
Petitioners have been working for more than 20 years as DLR
employees. In such view of the matter, it is contended that the case of
the Petitioners is covered by the judgment ratio laid by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, reported in
2006(4) SCC 1; State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Keshari and
others. Referring to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.3921 of 2006 in
a case of similar situated employees, which was disposed of vide
order dated 16.07.2019. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also
contended that this Court disposes of the same by directing the
authorities to consider the case of the Petitioners in the light of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra)
and M.L. Keshari (supra) as well as Amarkanti Rai v. State of
// 3 //
Bihar and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265. Pursuant to the said
order under Annexure-11, it is further contended that those
employees have been regularized in the meantime.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that pursuant to
the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the
representation of the Petitioners has been duly considered and
accordingly, the Forest and Environment Department submitted a
proposal to the Finance Department, however, the Finance
Department has return the proposal by regretting. Therefore, it is
further contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate
that the case of the Petitioners has been duly considered by the
authorities and nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition of the Petitioners is
devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and upon a careful examination of the background facts of the
present case as well as the impugned rejection order dated 9th
December, 2019 under Annexure-10, this Court is of the considered
view that the case of the Petitioners has not been considered in the
light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Umadevi, M.L. Keshari and Amarkanti (supra). This Court also
found that the representation of the Petitioners has been rejected only
on the ground that the Finance Department has issued a
communication regretting the proposal sent by the concerned
department. In such view of the matter, this Court is also of the
considered view that the impugned rejection order dated 9th
December, 2019 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the
// 4 //
same is set aside. Further the matter is remanded back to the
Opposite Party No.3 to consider the same afresh keeping in view the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi, M.L.
Keshari and Amarkanti (supra) as well as the order dated 16.07.2019
passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3921 of
2006 and, accordingly, take a decision by passing a speaking and
reasoned order. The Petitioners is directed to approach the Opposite
Party No.3 within three weeks from today along with a certified copy
of this order and the documents they are relied upon in support of
their claim. The final decision to be taken by the Opposite Party No.3
be also communicated to the Petitioners within two weeks thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC CUTTACK
Date: 06-Aug-2023 13:38:10
