Orissa High Court
Nimain Charan Palei vs State Of Odisha And Others on 13 February, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2111 of 2024
Nimain Charan Palei .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. B.S. Tripathy 1, Senior Advocate
Mr. A. Tripathy, Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. K.C. Kar, Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 13th February, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Tripathy, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
appellant and submits, impugned is judgment dated 25 th June, 2024
made by the learned single Judge dismissing his client's writ petition.
Prayer in it was for quashing advertisement dated 2 nd July, 2019
inviting applications, inter alia, for post of Junior Research Fellow
(JRF) purely on contractual basis. The learned single Judge instead of
directing attention to impugned advertisement, went on to hold that his
client was never regularized.
2. Drawing attention to communication dated 1 st January, 2014 he
points out, it was addressed by the Additional Secretary to Government
to the authorized person of his client's employer on subject of creation
of 11 posts of Research Fellows in wildlife organizations. The subject
and contents of the communication are reproduced below.
"Sub Creation of 11 posts of Research Fellows in
Wildlife Organisation in compliance to the decision in
item No.8 of 2nd meeting of State Board for Wildlife.
Sir,
In inviting a reference to your letter No.5550 dt.
5.7.2013 on the above subject I am directed to say that
Govt. in Finance Department have been pleased to
accord post facto approval of 11 nos. of Research
Fellows engaged by P.C.C.F. (W.L.) & CWLW, Odisha.
Further enhancement of Monthly remuneration of the
above Research Fellows from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-
has also been concurred by the Finance Department.
This has been concurred by the Finance Department
vide UOR No.204 dt. 11.10.2013."
WA no.2111 of 2024
There cannot be any doubt regarding his client's service having been
regularized. His client has put in more than six years of continuous
service. Impugned judgment is erroneous and requires interference in
appeal.
3. Mr. Kar, learned advocate, Government Advocate appears on
behalf of respondent (State) and submits, appointment of appellant was
purely on contractual basis. On query he draws attention to appointment
letter dated 26th June, 2009 to demonstrate that there was term therein
that the engagement is purely temporary and contractual in nature. It is
terminable at any time without assigning any reason. He submits
further, Forest and Environment Department by letter dated 5 th
December, 2017 communicated condition imposed by the Finance
Department being that JRFs should not continue for more than five
years. This communication was relied upon by the learned single Judge.
He adds, concurrence by the Finance Department regarding appellant's
appointment was for the cost of appointment, to pay his remuneration. It
did not amount to regularization.
WA no.2111 of 2024
4. Mr. Tripathy submits in reply, his client had another prayer for
being allowed to continue in service. The learned single Judge by
pronouncing on the issue of regularization, did not at all consider said
prayer.
5. We have, as appears from impugned judgment, communication
made to the Forest Department that Research Fellows or Junior
Research Fellows should not be allowed to work for more than five
years. There was advisory for allowing those who had served more than
five years, to continue for another year till disengagement. Appellant
says he put in a length of service beyond the time contemplated under
direction and the advisory. However, there is only said communication
dated 1st January, 2014 relied upon by appellant for his contention that
his service stood regularized. Subject of the communication saying
creation of 11 posts must be read in line with requirement of the
Department to engage, inter alia, Research Fellows. The appointment
letter having been issued containing clear condition of the service being
contractual, implication cannot be resorted to for converting the
appointment, as one regularly made against a sanctioned post.
WA no.2111 of 2024
6. On query Mr. Tripathy submits, the advertisement was not acted
upon and his client stood disengaged from year 2022. Such being the
facts, we have not been able to find any way in which we can interfere
with impugned judgment. The finding appellant was not regularized
though appears to be removed from prayers made in the writ petition,
must be seen as reason to have rejected them.
7. At this stage, Mr. Tripathy reiterates, his client has put in
continuous service in excess of six years. There is Government policy in
place for deemed regularization. His client now stands no chance of
obtaining any otherwise employment. This contention appellant must
urge separately inasmuch as it is a separate cause of action removed
from prayers made in the writ petition, out of which this appeal arose.
8. Impugned judgment is confirmed. The appeal is disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
SK Jena/Secy. Designation: SECRETARY
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 14-Feb-2025 15:31:38
WA no.2111 of 2024
