Orissa High Court
Surya Narayan Boxi & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 8 May, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10806 of 2024
Surya Narayan Boxi & ors. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha & ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
D.Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.05.2024
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The Petitioners have filed this application seeking direction to
the Opposite Parties to regularize their services in the post of Amin
taking into account their continuous service of more than 10 years as
expeditiously as possible.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners
have been continuing in the post of Amin under Opposite Party No.5
on DLR basis. In the meantime, as their posts have been sanctioned,
the services of the Petitioners should be regularized against the said
post, but during pendency of the matter before the Opposite Party
No.1, the order vide Annexure-8 is passed by the Opposite Party
No.5, which is not sustainable in law and the same is hereby quashed.
He has referred to the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi,
2006(4) SCC 1, wherein in paragraph 53, the apex Court has held
that the State Government and their instrumentalities should take
steps to regularise as one-time measure the services of such
irregularity appointed who have worked for ten years or more in
duly sanctioned posts. Similar view has also been taken by the apex
Court in State of Karnataka and others v. M.K.Keshari and others,
2010(II) OLR (SC) 982, wherein in paragraph 7 the apex Court has
held as follows:
"It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the
general principles against 'regularisation' enunciated in Umadevi if
the following conditions are fulfilled :
i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or
more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection
of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words,
the State Government or its instrumentality should have
employed the employee and continued him in service
voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal even
if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or
continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons
appointed do not possesses the prescribed minimum
qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be
illegal. But where the person employed possessed the
prescribed qualification and was working against sanctioned
posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process
of open competitive-selection, such appointments are
considered to be irregular."
5. In that view of the matter, since the Petitioners are continuing
against sanctioned post of Class-IV and completed more than 10
years of service and even though their appointment is irregular they
should be regularized in service in view of the judgment of the apex
Court in Umadevi (supra) and M.L.Keshari (supra).
6. It is of relevance to note that in a similar case, in respect of
Angul Municipality, this Court vide order dated 27.11.2014 in
W.P.(C) No.26860 of 2013 directed the Opposite Parties to regularise
the services of the Petitioner therein in view of the judgment of the
apex Court in Umadevi (supra) and M.L.Keshari (supra). Against the
said order dated 27.11.2014 the state of Odisha, as well as Angul
Municipality preferred W.A.No.407 of 2015, which was dismissed
on 19.01.2016 passed in W.A.No.407 of 2015, the State as well as
Angul Municipality filed S.L.P. before the apex Court and by a
common order dated 13.05.2016 the S.L.P was dismissed.
Consequentially, the State authorities issued office order dated
06.06.2016 for regularizing the Petitioner in the said writ application.
Furthermore, in W.P.(C) No.10100 of 2010 filed by Dhruba Charan
Nayak of Paradeep Municipality this Court passed similar order on
07.07.2017 and pursuant thereto the benefit has already been
extended to the Petitioner therein.
7. In view of such position, the Opposite Parties are directed to
consider regularization of the services of the Petitioners and grant all
consequential benefits as due and admissible to them in accordance
with law within a period of three months from the date of production
of a certified copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition
is allowed.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Location: High Court of Orissa
