Orissa High Court
Lalata Kishor Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3920 of 2025
Lalata Kishor Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Bipin Kumar Nayak
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Ms. Sasmita Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.02.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel 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:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
your Lordship may graciously be pleased to
admit this writ application and issue Rule NISI to
the opp.parties to show cause as to why they
shall not be directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization of his service in the
vacant post of Peon or any other Group-D post
lying vacant in Kanas Block within a stipulated
period.
And on their failing to show cause or showing
insufficient cause, issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s)
directing the opp.parties to consider the case of
the petitioner for regularization of his service in
the post of Peon or any other Group D post lying
vacant in Kanas Block within a stipulated period.
And pass such further order(s) as may be
deemed fit and proper."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner has been working in Group-D post against the vacancy in
the post in Kanas Block as a daily ways worker w.e.f. 01.07.2007. He
further contended that the engagement of the Petitioner is supported
by a Panchayat Samit Meeting Resolution on the basis of which the
BDO had issued an engagement order. He further contended that the
Petitioner has been discharging his duty continuously against the
aforesaid vacant post for almost 17 years. The grievance of the
Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although the Petitioner
has been working for 17 years against a vacant post, however, his
service has not been regularized. In the aforesaid context learned
counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the letter
written by the BDO, Kanas to the Collector, Puri on 14.10.2024
under Annexure-4 to the writ petition, submitted that although the
BDO has recommended the case of the Petitioner for a sympathetic
consideration and for regularization/absorption against vacant Group-
D post in Kanas Block. However, no decision has been taken by the
Collector, Puri, i.e. Opposite Party No.2. Being aggrieved by such
inaction of the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has approached
this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
he has no instruction in the matter. He further submitted that there is
also nothing on record to prove that the Petitioner had approached the
Opposite Parties regarding his grievance which is pending before the
Opposite Party No.2. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the State submitted that in the event the Petitioner is directed to
approach the Opposite Party No.2 afresh by filing a fresh
representation taking therein all the grounds, he will have no
objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3
to consider the same in accordance with law within a stipulated
period of time.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jaggo v. Union of India & others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
3826 as well as in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka -v.-
Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka-v.-
M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, contended that since the
Petitioner has been working for last 17 years against the vacant
Group-D post, therefore, there is no legal impediment in
regularization the service of the present Petitioner.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts of the
present writ petition, further considering the submissions made by the
learned counsels, 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 Nos.2 & 3 by filing a fresh and
detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with the
supporting documents as well as the copies of the judgments relied
upon by the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. In
such eventuality, the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 shall do well to
consider the same in accordance with law by keeping in view the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted
judgments and dispose of the representation within a period of three
months by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision
so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 14-Feb-2025 18:39:05
