Orissa High Court
Nrusingha Charan Behera And vs State Of Odisha And Others on 10 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.25731 of 2023
Nrusingha Charan Behera and .... Petitioners
others
Mr. S.K. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. T. Pattanaik, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 10.08.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. S. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
for the OTDC. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioners
with the following prayer:-
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the record.
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ/writs direction/directions directing the Opposite
Parties to regularize the service of the Petitioners as
against the post of Asst. Seed Certification Officer and to
extend all the consequential service and financial as due
and admissible to the Petitioners within a stipulated time to
// 2 //
be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iv) And/or pass such other order/ orders, direction/ directions
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends
of justice."
4. It is submitted by Mr. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement by the Odisha State Seed
and Organic Product Certification Agency, the Petitioners applied for
appointment on contractual basis the post of Asst. Seeds Certification
Officer. Thereafter, the Petitioners were issued with the appointment
letter in the year, 2010 and 2012. It is further contended by learned
counsel for the Petitioner that since the appointment is on contractual
basis the service of the Petitioner is being renewed from time to time
the last of renewal was on 31.10.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that
although the Petitioners have been treated as Group-B employees under
the Rules 2013. However, their cases for regularization have not been
considered by the Opposite Parties. Further, drawing comparison with
Group-C & B employees, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that after completion of 6 years of service their services have been
regularized. Therefore, the present petitioners are concerned, the
authorities have ignored the cases of the Petitioners of regularization of
their service. Accordingly, the Petitioners have approached this court by
filing the present writ application.
6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, on the other hand
submitted that the petitioners are initially engaged as contractual
employees and their contract is being renewed from time to time. It is
also contended by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties that the
petitioner have been given the benefits as is due and admissible to claim
as per the 2013 Rules It was also submitted before this Court that in the
event, the Petitioners approached the authorities their cases for
// 3 //
regularization of service shall be considered by the Board of the
Opposite Parties-Agency in accordance with law within a stipulated
period of time.
7. With regard to regularization of service learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Rudrakanta Panda
and Ors. Vs. State of Odisha and Ors. decided on 19.01.2022, Bhaskar
Chandra Roul Vs. State of Odisha and Ors. decided on 17.02.2023 and
Manoranjan Swain and Ors. Vs. State of Odisha and Ors. decided on
24.02.2023. He further submitted that all the aforesaid judgments have
been rendered while interpreting the 2013 rules and accordingly,
Opposite Parties in those were directed to regularize the contractual
service of the Petitioner on completion of 6 years of service from the
date of initial appointment and with a further direction to pay all
consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period of
time.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the above
referred judgments identical to the facts of the present case. Therefore,
the authorities need to be considered the case of the Petitioners for
regularization of their services keeping in the view the aforesaid
judgments. He also contended that the case of the Petitioners be also
considered in the light of the order passed in Shibaji Sethy and others
Vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.9526 of 2022 decided on
09.05.2022 wherein this Court has directed the Opposite Parties to
consider the case of regularization of Petitioners, whose while working
as Casual Labourers on NMR Basis for a long time taking into
consideration the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 keeping
in view observation in para-53 of the aforesaid judgment as well as in
State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Keshari and others, reported
// 4 //
in 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982 and in the case of Amarkanti Rai Vs. State
of Bihar and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265.
9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels appearing
for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the
background facts of the present case as well as materials placed before
this court for consideration, this Court is of the considered view that the
Petitioner should have approached the Departmental Authority before
approaching this Court by submitting his grievance before the
authorities first. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper
to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing
the Petitioner to file a comprehensive representation along with all
supporting documents as well as copies of the judgments is relying in
support of his contention before the Director, of Agriculture and Farmer
Empowerment Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2
within a period of three weeks from today. In the event, such a
representation is filed before the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite
Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same in the light of the
judgments referred to hereinabove and dispose of the representation by
passing a speaking and reasoned order within two months from the date
of filing such representation. The decision so taken be communicated to
the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed ( A.K. Mohapatra )
Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA
Designation: Secretary-in-Charge Judge
Reason: Authentication
Jagabandhu
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
Date: 10-Aug-2023 18:03:39
