Orissa High Court
Kailash Chandra Mallik vs State Of Odisha And Others on 5 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13916 of 2023
Kailash Chandra Mallik .... Petitioners
Mr.K.C.Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.A.Behera, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Order No. ORDER
05.05.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following
prayer :
"It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be
graciously pleased to pass following relief(s):-
i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this
Writ Petition.
ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this Writ Petition
by further directing the Opp.Parties to regularize the
service of the Petitioner in the regular vacant post of
Monument Attendant or any other similar Class-IV post
available under the administration control of Opp.Party
No.3 with all consequential service benefits within a
time bound period for the interest of justice.
iii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other
order(s)/direction(s) as deems fit and proper for the ona
// 2 //
fide interest of justice."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially engaged on 01.07.1992 as Monument
Attendant under Opposite Party No.3 with a consolidated pay.
Thereafter, the Petitioner continued in such post. On 25.01.1993 the
Opposite Party No.3 prepared a list of Monument Attendant working
under different Stations in which the name of the Petitioner appears
at Sl.No.13 as per Annexure-2. On 02.04.2013 the Opposite Party
No.3 informed the Government vide letter dated 02.04.2013 that 14
number of posts of Monument Attendant are still vacant under his
control along with his letter. He also forwarded a copy of the list of
persons, who are working as Monument Attendant. The list attached
to the letter dated 02.04.2013 under Annexure-3, it appears that the
Petitioner's name finds place at Sl.No.20. Thereafter, the Petitioner
approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.449
of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.03.2019 with a
direction to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of
their service. However, in spite of the direction of the Tribunal, no
decision has been taken by the Opposite Parties with regard to
regularization of service of Monument Attendant against any of the
vacant post lying with Opposite Party No.3
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further drawing the attention
of the Court to the letter under Annexure-3 submitted that the
gradation list appended to the letter under Annexure-3 reveals that
the Petitioner was engaged against sanctioned post created vide
G.O.No.11017/SC dated 24.12.1992 and his initial entry has been
shown as 01.09.1992. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has rendered service
continuously for more than 30 years. Furthermore, against the name
// 3 //
of the Petitioner in the gradation list reveals "engaged as
departmental experienced candidate". In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties
be directed to regularize the services of the Petitioner against any of
the vacant post under Opposite Party No.3.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand
submitted that pursuant to the direction the matter is pending for
consideration before the appropriate Government. He further
submitted that if desirable, the Petitioner may file a fresh
representation before the Opposite Party No.1 along with the
documents he has relied upon and in the event such a representation
is filed the Opposite Party No1 be directed to consider the same
within a stipulated period of time against any vacant post and he has
no objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the respective parties and keeping in view the factual background
facts and the Petitioner has been working uninterruptedly for more
than three decades, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ
Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Petitioner to file a
fresh representation before Opposite Party No.1 within three weeks
from today along with all supporting documents. In the event such a
representation is filed the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to
consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the law
laid down in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnatake-v.-Uma
Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka -v.-ML
Keshari reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587 and Amarkant Rai -v.-
State of Bihar reported in (2005) 8 SCC 265 judgment and shall
consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization against any
other vacant regular post. Let the decision as directed herein above be
// 4 //
taken by Opposite Party No.1 within two months from the date of
communication of the order. The decision so taken be communicated
to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
