Orissa High Court
Ms.Bandana Jena And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8259 of 2025
Ms.bandana Jena and others ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Swapna Kumar Ojha
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 02.04.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may be
graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the
Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued directing
the Opposite Parties to extend the benefit of order/Judgment
under Annexure-1 & 2 further directing the Opp.Parties to
regularise the services of the Petitioners as Lady Community
Organizer with effect from the date(s) they have completed six
years of service as per the policy decision of the Government
under Annexure- 5 & 6 as has been done by the Panchayatiraj
Department and Electronics and Information Technology
Department and pay them all their service and financial
benefits as a regular employee retrospectively;
If the Opp.Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient
cause rule may be made absolute.
And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as
deemed fit and proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners were initially appointed pursuant to an advertisement
dated 15.05.2013 under Annexure-3 on contractual basis.
Accordingly, the appointment letters were issued on 17.09.2013
under Annexure-5 to the writ application. He further contended that
since the date of their re-engagement they have been working
sincerely without any disruption in their service. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submitted that although the petitioners have
approached the Opposite Parties for regularisation of their service by
filing a representation on 13.02.2025 under Annexure-9 to the writ
application. However, no decision has been taken on such
representation by the opposite parties. Being aggrieved by such
conduct of the opposite parties, the petitioners have approached this
Court by filing the present writ application. In course of his argument
learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment of this
Court in Krushna Chandra Bhoi vs. State of Odisha and others in
W.P.(C) No.26542 of 2022 decided on 07.01.2025 and the judgments
of a co-ordinate bench in Jayakrushna Jena and others vs. Sate of
Odisha and others in W.P.C(OAC) No.4672 of 2016 decided on
28.02.2025. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme
Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka -v.- Uma Devi,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others,
reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826, in Sripal and Anr. vs. Nagar
Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal
No.8158-8179 of 2024 and State of Karnataka-v.-M.L. Kesari,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 47. He further contended that taking into
consideration the period of service the petitioners have rendered over
the years, the opposite parties should have considered the case of the
petitioners for regularisation of their services. He further contended
that although the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis,
however the nature of duties they were performing was perennial in
nature. It was also contended that the petitioners were selected by
following a due selection procedure after the posts were duly
advertised. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that several
posts of community organiser are lying vacant as indicated at serial
No.53 of the said order.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
although he has no instruction in the matter. However, on perusal of
the writ application it appears that the present writ application has
been filed with a prayer for regularisation of service of the
petitioners. He further contended that on perusal of the writ
application it appears that the petitioners have already approached the
Opposite Party No.1 by filing representation dated 13.02.2025 under
Annexure-9 to the writ application. In the event the representation
under Annexure-9 is still pending, he will have no objection if this
Court directs the Opposite party No.1 to consider the representation
of the petitioners under Annexure-9, keeping in view the judgments
referred to hereinabove within a stipulated period of time.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further
keeping in view the factual background of the present case as well as
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this
Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by
directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularisation by disposing of the representation of the
petitioners under Annexure-9 in terms of the judgments referred to
hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of today's order. The
rrepresentation of the petitioners is to be disposed of by passing a
speaking and reasoned order by referring to the judgments indicated
hereinabove. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
petitioners within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
