Orissa High Court
Ghasi Sabar And Others vs Prem Chandra Chaudhary on 27 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No.2432 of 2019
Ghasi Sabar and others ..... Petitioners
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Adv.
Vs.
Prem Chandra Chaudhary, IAS, ..... Opposite Party/Contemnor
Commissioner, Bhubaneswar
Municipal Corporation,
Bhubaneswar
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. and
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Sahu, Adv.
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
27.01.2023
Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
4.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.
3. Mr. Sahu, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/Contemnor
submits that the Order dated 09.02.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.2225 of
2018 has already been complied with and to the said effect, a
Compliance Affidavit dated 28.08.2020 has been filed after serving
copy of the same on the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/Contemnor submits that
the prayer of the Petitioners was for regularization of their services and
the Opposite Party/Contemnor is not the competent Authority to take a
decision in the said regard as it requires prior approval of the Director,
Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio-Additional Secretary to
Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar.
Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/Contemnor further
submits that in terms of the Order dated 09.02.2018, the case of the
Petitioners was considered and recommended and was sent to the
Authority concerned for seeking due approval for regularizing the
services of the Petitioners. He brings to the notice of the Court the show
cause reply dated 28.08.2020, so also communication vide letter
No.6406, dated 20.02.2020 made by the Additional Commissioner,
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to the Director Municipal
Administration & Ex-Officio-Additional Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, and further submits that since response of the Director
Municipal Administration is still awaited, no action could be taken by
the Contemnor to consider the case of the present Petitioners for
regularization of their service.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that communication
dated 21.09.2015, which is appended to the show cause reply as
Annexure-C, though well demonstrates that the names of 126 nos. of
employees who belong to General category and 181 nos. of employees
of Conservancy category were furnished in the prescribed format
pertaining to DLR/NMR employees engaged under Bhubaneswar
Municipal Corporation and the names of the present Petitioners find
place within the said 181 nos. of Conservancy category, but their cases
are yet to be considered for permanent absorption under the
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the
Order dated 09.02.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.2225 of 2018 has not
been complied with in its letter and spirit, operative portion of which is
extracted below for ready reference.
"This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel
and taking into consideration the fact that decision is to be
taken by the opposite party no.4 at the first instance, hence it
is proper to dispose of the writ petition, instead of issuing
notice upon him, giving liberty to the petitioners to file
representation individually before the opposite party no.4
raising the entire grievance along with all supporting
documents/ order/circular/judgment in support the claim
within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
The opposite party no.4 is directed to take decision in
accordance with law within period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order."
5. In view of the Order dated 09.02.2018 passed in W.P.(C)
No.2225 of 2018, so also communications made by the Contemnor to
the appropriate Authority, which have been appended to the show cause
reply as Annexure-A to H, this Court is of the view that the Order dated
09.02.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.2225 of
2018 has already been complied with.
6. So far as inaction of the Authority to accord necessary approval
for regularization of the services of the Petitioners, it is open for the
Petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their
grievances, if any, in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the CONTC. stands dropped and disposed of.
padma
(S.K. MISHRA)
(JUDGE)
