Orissa High Court
) Jignayas Kumar Patel vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 2 April, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6727 of 2024
1) Jignayas Kumar Patel ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. - Ashok
Kumar Panigrahi
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) State Transport Authority, Cuttack Represented By Adv. -
3) R.t.o., Jharsuguda Mr.D.Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 02.04.2024
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 application as well as
the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/writs in the
nature of mandamus by directing the Opp. Parties to
consider the legitimate claim of the petitioner in the matter
of regularization of service in the post of IT Expert.
And further direct that till such a decision is taken not
to dispense with the service of the petitioner.
And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders
as deemed fit and proper to give complete relief to the
petitioner."
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner has been working as I.T. Expert under the Opposite Party
No.3, on being sponsored by the outsourcing service provider
agency. He further contended that since 2007 he has been working
regularly against a sanctioned vacant post. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that recently the Opposite Parties have
taken steps for selection another service provider agency. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is apprehending that he might be thrown out of service
in the event another agency is engaged. He also contended taking into
consideration the long period of service rendered by the Petitioner
since 2007 against a sanctioned vacant post, the Opposite Party No.2
be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularisation of
service. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka -v.- Uma Devi, reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka-v.-M.L. Kesari, reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 247 as well as by this Court in case of Basanta Kumar
Barik -v.- State of Odisha and others (WPC(OA) No.616 of 2017
decided on 26.11.2021).
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand
contended that the Petitioner as an employee of the outsourcing
service provider agency. There is no direct relation with the
petitioner and the Opposite Parties. He further contended that the
Petitioner has not been engaged any sanctioned vacant post. In such
view of the matter, learned A.S.C. submitted that the Petitioner has
no right to claim regularisation of his service. He also contended that
instead of approaching the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has
approached this Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ
application is devoid of merit and hence the same should be
dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of
the background facts, further keeping in view the fact that the
Petitioner has been working since 2007 uninterruptedly it appears
that nature of work he is performing is perennial in nature. Therefore,
it appears that there is a necessity of his regular employment. Further,
it appears that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties
for redressal of his grievance. In such view of the matter, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of
admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh
representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting
documents before the Opposite Party No.2 within three weeks from
today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the
same in the light of the judgments referred to hereinabove and
consider the same for regularisation against any vacancy of
sanctioned post within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The
final decision taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to
the Petitioner within a week from the date of taking such decision. It
is further directed that till a decision is taken on the representation of
the Petitioner no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ application
stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
