Orissa High Court
Anama Bagarti 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.31790 of 2024
Anama Bagarti ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Saswati Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha & ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
U.C.Jena, 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 present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner
with a prayer for a direction to the Redhakhol NAC to regularize the
service of the Petitioner in the post of Peon within a stipulated period
of time and for grant of all consequential and financial benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that
the Petitioner was initially engaged on 19.08.2003 on DLR basis as a
Driver by the then Chairperson, Redhakhol NAC. Thereafter, the
Petitioner continued to discharge his duties as a Driver
uninterruptedly without any break. She further submitted that
although the Petitioner has been serving for more than two decades
as a Driver on DLR basis, his service has not been regularized as of
now. She further submitted that although there are ex-regular posts of
Driver lying vacant, the case of the Petitioner for regularization has
not been considered as of now. In the aforesaid context, learned
counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court.
5. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the letter of the Executive Officer, Redhakhol NAC dated
05.06.2007 under Annexure-3. She further contended the staff
position of different ULBS which has been communicated vide letter
dated 05.06.2007 includes the name of the present Petitioner at Sl.
No.28 of the list annexed to the letter. She also referred to letter dated
29.12.2017 issued by the Executive Officer, Redhakhol NAC which
reveals that the Petitioner was working as a Care taker under the
Redhakhol NAC. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that since the Petitioner has got for more
than two decades and that the regular posts are lying vacant in the
NAC, then the service of the Petitioner should have been regularized
in terms of the judgment of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
the Petitioner has not approached the competent authority before
approaching this Court. Therefore, he further contended that in the
event the Petitioner be directed to approach the competent authority
by filing a detailed representation with a further direction to the
competent authority to consider the same in accordance with law
within a stipulated period of time, then he will have no objection to
the same.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed
representation along with supporting documents and any judgments
in support of his contention along with a certified copy of this order
within a period of four weeks from today. In such eventuality, the
Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the representation of the
Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The representation of
the Petitioner shall be considered and disposed of within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.
The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within
two weeks from the date of taking such a decision.
8. It is further clarified that no coercive action shall be taken
against the Petitioner till a final decision is taken on his
representation.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Location: High Court of Orissa
