Orissa High Court
Sanjukta Kumari Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.30924 of 2023
Sanjukta Kumari Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Patnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.10.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
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 Petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi
calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to
why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be
issued directing the Opposite Parties to regularize the
services of the petitioner form the initial date of
appointment with all consequential and financial service
benefits and further be pleased to direct the Opposite
Parties to give all consequential and financial benefits
for the period of disengagement i.e. from 16.11.2022 to
01.05.2012 within a stipulated period and upon perusal
// 2 //
of causes shown if any or upon insufficient causes
shown make the said rule absolute and may pass such
other order/orders as deemed just and proper."
4. Mr. D.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
at the outset, submitted that the Petitioner is a physically challenged
person, who was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk on 29.1.1994.
Thereafter, she continued in service on 44 days basis with artificial
breaks. Thereafter, the Petitioner was disengaged from service.
Further, referring to the engagement letter dated 8.8.1994 under
Annexure-3, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before this
Court that taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the
Government has observed that her case should be treated as a special
case. Further, it has been observed that there should not be any such
irregular appointment without written orders of Chief Minister in the
file to relax the existing rules and instructions. Accordingly, the
Petitioner was allowed to continue on ad-hoc basis. It is further
contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner
was disengaged from service from 16.11.2002 to 1.5.2012. Again
she was reengaged on 44 days basis with same terms and conditions
which was initially fixed at the time of her engagement. While
working on ad-hoc basis, the Petitioner approached the Board of
Revenue, Odisha for regularization of her service by taking into
consideration the period of service she has already rendered on ad-
hoc basis. On 5.7.2014 and 22.7.2014, the Petitioner submitted her
representation to the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Odisha,
which was accepted and forwarded to the concerned department for
consideration her application. Finally, vide letter dated 2.8.2014, the
Joint Secretary to Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department forwarded the representation of the
Petitioner to the Collector, Jagatsinghpur and the Collector,
// 3 //
Jagatsinghpur was directed to examine the matter and to submit a
report to the Government. The ADM.-cum-District Registrar,
Jagatsinghpur vide letter dated 13.8.2019 submitted a report to the
IGR, Odisha, Cuttack. Referring the letter dated 2.3.2020 under
Annexure-23, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Under Secretary (Regn.), Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack wrote a
letter to the Joint Secretary to Government, Revenue & D.M.
Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswr in the context of the grievance
petition of the present Petitioner. In the said letter, Government was
requested to take a decision in the matter for regularization of service
of the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner is
continuing in service on ad-hoc basis and her pay has been revised in
the meantime and the same has been fixed at Rs.19,900/- vide order
dated 1.9.2021 under Annexure-24.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
Petitioner being a physically challenged person, he is entitled to the
benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Accordingly, it is also submitted that the case of regularization of
service of the Petitioner should have been considered by the
Government keeping in view the aforesaid facts. Being aggrieved the
inaction of the authorities, the Petitioner has approached this Court
for a direction to the Opposite Parties to regularize her service.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that on perusal
of the record, it appears that the case of the Petitioner is still pending
before the Government. He further submitted that in the event this
Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to examine the whole issue
strictly in accordance with law and pass necessary orders within a
// 4 //
stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of
the background facts of the present case, this Court deems it proper
to dispose of writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the
Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party
No.1 taking therein all the grounds available to her along with all
supporting documents within a period of three weeks from today. In
such event the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the
same in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3),
reported in (2006) 4 SCC-1; State of Karnatak vs. M.L.Keshari,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247; Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar &
Others, reported in 2015 (8) SCC 265 and the judgment of this Court
in case of Basanta Kumar Barik -v.- State of Odisha and others,
reported in 2021 (III) ILR-CUT 624 as well as the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 and pass necessary orders within a period
of two months from the date of communication of certified copy of
this order. The decision so taken thereon be communicated to the
Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Debasis
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC CUTTACK
Date: 12-Oct-2023 19:52:47
