Orissa High Court
Golaka Gouda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 24 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.675 of 2025
Golaka Gouda ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Swadhin Kesari Singh
-versus-
State Of Odisha & ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
A.Pati, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.01.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical 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:
"In view of the above stated facts and circumstances,
this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule
NISI calling upon the 0pp. parties to show cause as to why
necessary directions shall not be issued to regularize the
service of the Petitioner in any Class-IV post lying vacant
in the office of the Regulated Market Committee, Hinjilicut
in the District of Ganjam with all consequential service
benefits.
And if the 0pp. Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause this Hon'ble Court may make the said
rule absolute by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the
0pp. Parties to regularize the service of the Petitioner in
any Class-IV post lying vacant in the office of the
Regulated Market Committee, Hinjilicut in the District of
Ganjam with consequential service benefits.
AND further be pleased to issue any other appropriate
writ/writs, rule/rules or order/orders, direction/directions
as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that
the Petitioner having requisite qualification was engaged as a Daily
Wager on 01.11.2011. Thereafter, he continued to discharge his
duties as a daily wager continuously without any break for almost 13
years. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted
that although sanctioned vacant posts are available, however, the
authorities are not considering the representation for regularization of
service of the Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for
the petitioner drawing attention of latest judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on
20.12.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos.14831 of 2024 and 14832 of 2024
contended that in para-10 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed:-
"Having given careful consideration to the submissions
advanced and the material on record, we find that the
Appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods
extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside
merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or
contractual. The essence of their employment must be
considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the
integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence
suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious
route."
5. In view of the aforesaid latest pronouncement of the legal
position with regard to regularization of service, learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that the Petitioner be given liberty to
approach the Opposite Parties afresh by filing a fresh representation
taking therein all the grounds along with a copy of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo's case (supra).
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that
in the event the Petitioner is given liberty to approach the Opposite
Parties with a prayer for regularization of his service and with a
corresponding direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the same
strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the latest judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a stipulated period of time, then
he will have no objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
materials on record, further taking note of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Jaggo's case (supra), this Court deems
it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission
by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation
taking therein all the grounds along with all judgments in support of
his contention within a period of two weeks from today before the
Opposite Party No.4. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.4
shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner strictly in
accordance with law and taking into consideration the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo's case (supra) and dispose of
the representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within
eight weeks from the date of submission of such representation along
with a certified copy of today's order. The final decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of
taking such a decision.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Location: High Court of Orissa
