Orissa High Court
Narayan Samal vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 28 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.17621 of 2024
Narayan Samal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Niranjan Nayak
-versus-
State Of Odisha & ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
M.R.Mohanty, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
28.01.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Govt. Advocate 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 humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
1. Admit the writ application.
2. Call for the records.
3. Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. parties to show
cause as to why the order passed by the Dy. General
Manager (HRD) (opp. Party no. 6) dtd.26.10.2017 under
annexure-2 rejecting the case of the petitioner for
regularisation of service shall not be quashed;
4. If the opp. Party do not show cause or failed to show
cause, issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the order
passed by the Dy. General Manager (HRD) (opp. Party no.
6) dtd. 26.10.2017 under annexure-2, AND
5. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to
regularise the service of the petitioner taking into account
the long and uninterrupted thirty one (31) years of service
and extend all the consequential financial service benefits
within a stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.
And pass any other order/orders or direction/
directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;"
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner, who is working as a Contingent Khalasi for last 31 years,
has approached this Court by filing the present writ application with
a prayer for regularization of his service. In course of his argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has
been working uninterruptedly since last 31 years, however, his
service has not been regularised. Being aggrieved by such inaction on
the part of the Opposite Parties earlier the Petitioner had approached
this Court by filing O.J.C. No.5272 of 1997 which was disposed of
vide order dated 14.07.2014 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to
file a representation before the authorities to consider the case of the
Petitioner for regularization of his service.
5. He further contended that although the Petitioner approached
the Opposite Party No.6 by filing a representation as directed by this
Court vide order dated 14.07.2014, however, the Opposite Party No.6
by a non-speaking and cryptic order rejected the representation of the
Petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.10.2017, this
Court is of the view that the same is a non-speaking order and no
reason whatsoever has been assigned while rejecting the Petitioner.
Taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has been
working as a Contingent Khalasi for last 31 years, this Court is of the
view that the Opposite Party No.6 should have considered the case of
the petitioner by elaborately discussing the factual background of the
case as well as by applying the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further referred to the order passed by this Court in Amar Kumar
Behera vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.9216 of 2024 disposed of
on 22.04.2024. On perusal of the said order it appears that the facts of
the aforesaid case involve the case of a Contingent Khalasi, who was
working for 29 years. After taking note of the judgment cited by the
counsels appearing for the parties, this Court had disposed of the
aforesaid writ application with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2
to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the law laid
down by this Court in Prasanna Kumar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. State of
Odisha & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.11392 of 2021 passed on 12.12.2022 as
well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, further keeping
in view the fact that the Petitioner has been working as a Contingent
Khalasi for last 31 years, this Court is of the view that the case of the
Petitioner deservers for consideration for regularisation in terms of
the order passed by this Court in Amar Kumar Behera's case (supra).
Accordingly, the writ application is being disposed of at the stage of
admission by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the
Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation within two
weeks from today along with copies of the judgments in support of
his contention including the order passed by this Court in Amar
Kumar Behera's case (supra). In the event, such a representation is
filed, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider and dispose
of the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law
and that taking into considerations the judgments referred to
hereinabove including the order passed by this Court in Amar Kumar
Behera's case (supra) within a period of eight weeks from the date of
filing of the representation. It is needless to mention here that the
representation of the Petitioner shall be considered and disposed of
by passing a speaking and reasoned order. 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 directed that while considering the case of the
Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall take into consideration the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India
& Ors. reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826. Since the Petitioner
has retired in the meantime, it is further directed that in the event the
Opposite Party No.2 comes to a conclusion that the service of the
Petitioner is liable to be regularized, then the dues as are due and
admissible to the Petitioner upon his regularization shall be
calculated and the differential amount which is payable to the
petitioner shall be paid to the Petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of taking such a decision.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, 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
Date: 29-Jan-2025 18:28:48
