Orissa High Court
) Panchali Bagarty vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 4 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.1019 of 2025
1) Panchali Bagarty ..... Petitioners
2) Babita Behera Represented By Adv. -
Saswati Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director Municipal Administration Represented By Adv. -
And Ex Offcio Addl. Secy To Govt., Mr.M.R.Mohanty,AGA
Bbsr
3) Executive Officer, Redhakhol Nac
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
04.02.2025
Order No.
02. 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 for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the
Petitioner humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to direct order the State
Opposite Parties to absorb the Petitioners since 2012
from the initial date of entry to the service of N.A.C.,
Rairakhol as Class IV employees within a stipulated
period as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court
And may pass such other order/orders as would
be just deem fit and proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that
the Petitioners have been working under the Rairakhol NAC
since the year 2012 as Class IV employee on DLR basis. She
further contended that although the Petitioners have been
working against sanctioned vacant post on DLR basis without
any interruption, however their services have not been
regularised as of now. She further contended that although the
Office of the N.A.C., Rairakhol has written to the Director,
Municipal Administration, Opposite Party no.2 with a request to
either take an early step for regularisation of the services of the
staff in the work charged posts or take any suitable measure
for continuance in service of DLR employees. However, no
decision has been taken or communicated to the N.A.C. in the
meantime. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further
contended that the Petitioners have been working for more
than 12 years on DLR basis without any interruption. However,
their services have not been regularised although sanctioned
Class IV posts are lying vacant. In the aforesaid context,
learned counsel for the Petitioners places reliance on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in
2006) 4 SCC 1, State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari, reported in
(010) 9 SCC 247 and Jaggo v. Union of India and others
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 as well as by this
Court in case of Basanta Kumar Barik v. State of Odisha
and others in WPC(OA) No.616 of 2017 decided on
26.11.2021. By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned
counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the consistent view
of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
persons who were working continuously for more than 10
years have had their services regularised.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other
hand contended that on perusal of the Writ Petition, it appears
that suggestions have been given by the N.A.C., Rairakhol to
Opposite Party No.2, however no further follow up action has
been taken on such suggestion. He further contended that the
Petitioners have not approached the Opposite Party No.2
before approaching this Court. Learned counsel for the State
also contended that in the event the Petitioners are directed to
approach the Opposite Party No.2 with a corresponding
direction to Opposite Party No.2 to consider their grievance in
accordance with law within a stipulated period of time, he will
have no objection to the same.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties,
on careful examination of the background facts of the present
case, keeping in view the fact that the Petitioners have been
working on DLR basis uninterruptedly as well as keeping in
view the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
Writ Petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to
the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party no.2 by filing a
detailed representation along with all supporting documents
and the judgments in support of their contentions within two
weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party no.2
shall consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in
accordance with law and the judgments relied upon by the
Petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking and
reasoned order within a period of three months from the date
of communication of certified copy of this order. The final
decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioners within
two weeks 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
RKS
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 06-Feb-2025 11:59:15
