) Aswini Kumar Lenka vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 4232 Ori

Orissa High Court

) Aswini Kumar Lenka vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 19 February, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               WP(C) No.5052 of 2025
            1) Aswini Kumar Lenka           .....    Petitioners
            2) Arjuna Charan Patra                              Represented By Adv. -
            3) Jagadananda Mohapatra                            Pratap Chandra
            4) Ramesh Chandra Pradhan                           Chhinchani
            5) Brajabandhu Pradhan
            6) Dambarudhar Bhol
            7) Amin Kumar Das
            8) Prasanta Kumar Hota
            9) Saroj Kumar Biswal
            10) Ganeswar Biswal
            11) Dhadi Khatoi

                                             -versus-
            1) State Of Odisha                          .....       Opposite Parties
            2) Puri Konark Development                          Represented By Adv. -
            Authority, Puri                                     Mr.U.C.Jena, ASC
            3) Vice Chairman, Puri Konark
            Development Authority, Puri
            4) The Secy., Puri Konark
            Development Authority, Puri

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                             ORDER

19.02.2025 Order No.

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 Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners

with the following prayer :

"The Petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why direction shall not be given to the Opp. Parties to regularise the services of the Petitioners as requested under Annexure-6 series from the initial date of engagement/joining in their respective posts instead of bringing them over to work charged establishment.

And pass such further order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;"

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioners were initially appointed during the year 1989- 90 on DLR basis. He further contended that, thereafter they have been continuing in service. However the Opposite Parties have not considered the case of the Petitioner for the regularisation of their service. He also submitted that although the Petitioners approached the Opposite Parties by filing a detailed representation under Annexure-6 series to the Writ Petition on 29.10.2022, however no decision has been taken on such representation by the Opposite Party No.3. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Statge of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo v. Union of India & others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Sripal and another V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024), learned counsel for the

Petitioners contended that since the Petitioners have been continuing in service uninterruptedly for more than three decades, the case of the Petitioners should have been considered and their services should have been regularised in the meantime, in the view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the Petitioners have already approached Opposite Party No.3, who is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter, the present Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to dispose of the representation of the Petitioners, if the same is pending, in accordance with law.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background of the case as well as the pleadings therein and the documents filed by the Petitioners, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioners to file a representation by taking therein all the grounds along with the supporting documents within two weeks from today before the Opposite Party No.3. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioners in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, within three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. The representations of the Petitioners shall be disposed of by the Opposite Party No.3 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioners within 10 days from the date of taking such decision.

8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS

Location: High Court of Orissa