Orissa High Court
Chittaranjan Rout vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 23 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.16098 of 2025
Chittaranjan Rout ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Krishna Chandra Sahu
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
23.06.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
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:
"It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordship's
be graciously pleased to pass following relief(s);-
(i) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to
allow the Writ petition,
(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the
Opp. Party authorities to regularise the
service of the petitioner in the regular
available Class-IV/Group-D vacant post of
Attendant or any other post under the
administrative control of Opp. party no-4 by
further allowing him to continue in his service
keeping in view of his long continuance of
more than 18 years on DLR basis so also
keeping in view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court passed in the case of "Uma Devi",
"M.L. Keshari", "Amarkant Ray" "Jaggo-Vs-
Union", "Shripal-Vs- Nagar Nigam,
Gaziabad" & Others so also the decision of
this Hon'ble Court in several similar nature of
cases with all consequential serve & financial
benefits within a time bound period for the
interest of justice.
(iii) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased
to pass any other Writ(s), Direction(s),
Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may be deemed
fit and proper,"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner who has been working for last 18 years approached the
Opposite Parties for regularization of his service against any of the
sanctioned vacancies. However, the Opposite Parties have slept over
the matter and no decision has been taken on such prayer of the
Petitioner. He further contended that in the meantime all Group-D
posts have been filled up through the outsourcing agencies on
temporary basis. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the documents under
Annexure-4 which has been obtained under the Right to Information
Act contended that there are 167 vacancies against Class-IV posts
including the post of attendant against which the Petitioner is
working at the moment. With the aforesaid context, learned counsel
for the Petitioner drawing attention of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India & others
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka -v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as
well as in State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Keshari and others
reported in 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982 and in the case of Sripal and
another V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad decided on 31st January, 2025 in
Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024 as well as the decision of this
Court in case of Sitaram Behera v. State of Odisha and others;
(W.P.(C) No.8236 of 2024), submitted that since the Petitioner has
been working for more than one and half decades, his service should
have been regularized in terms of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgments.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
it appears that the petitioner has been approached the Opposite
Parties by submitting a representation. However, there is nothing on
record that the same has been submitted before the competent
authority. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State
contended that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to
approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in
accordance with law within a stipulated period of time, he will have
no objection to the same.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their
submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the
writ petition, further keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has
been working since a long time on contractual basis, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to
the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 by filing a
fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with all
supporting documents within two weeks from today. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Parties shall do well to consider the case of
the Petitioner in terms of the judgments referred to hereinabove as
well as keeping in view the vacancies of position under Annexure-4
to the writ petition. The Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 shall do well to
dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking
and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of
communication of today's order by the Petitioner. The final decision
so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days
thereafter. Further, it is directed that till a final decision is taken on
the representation of the Petitioner within a period of three months,
no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Jun-2025 10:42:53
