Orissa High Court
Lambodar Bal vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2024
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.42991 of 2023
Lambodar Bal .... Petitioner
Mr.S.K.Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.01.2024
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 Government Advocate.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the above circumstances, it is therefore
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously
pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to regularize the service
of the petitioner from 16.10.2012 as that has been done in
case of Sri Ananta Charan Sahu pursuant to the office order
dtd:13.02.2023 and 14.02.2023 under Annexure-4 and 5
respectively and to grant pension and other retiral benefits
available under law to the petitioner from 01.03.2023 as his
case is squarely covered by the ratio decided in the case of
Narasu Pradhan Vs. State of Odisha and others in O.A. No.
1189 (C) of 2006 confirmed by this Hon'ble Court in order
dtd:19.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010 further
confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.22499
of 2013;
And/or the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any
other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/
orders in the fitness of the case to give complete justice to
the petitioner;"
// 2 //
4. The factual background reading to filing the present writ
application, in short, is that the present petitioner along with one
Ananta Charan Sahu and Ladxikanta Pratapsingh were appointed as
Bus Driver on temporary basis under Talcher Municipality with
consolidated pay of Rs.1200/- on 31.01.1993. Where the Petitioner
was working on temporary basis pursuant to an order passed by the
State Government, the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons
with Ananta Charan Sahu were brought over to the work charged
establishment on 19.12.2012. The writ application further reveals that
the above named Ananta Charan Sahu was regularized by the State
Government w.e.f. 16.10.2012 and he has retired in the meantime
and he has been extended the pensionary benefits of a regular
employee. So far Petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that although the Petitioner was brought over to
the work charged establishment along with above named Ananta
Charan Sahu, however, the service of the Petitioner had not been
regularized before his retirement from service w.e.f. 28.02.2023. As a
result of which the Petitioner is not getting the retiral dues as well as
pensionary benefits as has been extended in the case of Ananta
Charan Sahu. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the conduct of the Opposite Parties are
violating of Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Two
employees, who were similarly placed i.e. the present Petitioner and
Ananta Charan Sahu. Whereas the above named Ananta Charan Sahu
was extended with all service benefits by regularizing his services
and in the case the present petitioner, the Opposite Parties have not
regularized his services and he has not been extended with retiral as
well as pensionary benefits. In the aforesaid background, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the conducts of the Opposite
// 3 //
Parties are highly illegal and arbitrary.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the
Petitioner has not approached the Departmental Authority before
approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. He
submitted that the facts of the case of above named Ananta Charan
Sahu is not known. He further submitted that it is to be ascertained as
to whether the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the above
named Ananta Charan Sahu. In such view of the matter, learned
Additional Government Advocate submitted the Petitioner be
directed to approach the Departmental Authority passed by filing a
detailed representation, which will be considered by the Opposite
Party No.1 in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.
6. 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 as well as the limited nature
of the grievance of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting
liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing
a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all
supporting documents within a period of three weeks from today. In
the event, the same is filed, the O.P. No.1 shall do well to consider in
accordance with law keeping in view the case of Narasu Pradhan vs.
State of Odisha & ors. in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006, which was
eventually confirmed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme court
in S.L.P.(C) No.22498 of 2012 dismissed on 07.01.2013 thereby
confirming the order of the Tribunal as well as this Court. The
Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider and dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order by taking into consideration the judgment in Narasu Pradhan's
// 4 //
case (supra) as well as keeping in view the case of Ananta Charan
Sahu within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication
of certified copy of this order. Further, it is directed that any final
decision taken by the authorities, be communicated to the Petitioner
within ten days from the date of taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 11-Jan-2024 14:52:11
