Orissa High Court
Sibaram Sahu vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 4 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6009 of 2025
Sibaram Sahu ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Tushar Kanti Satapathy
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director, Health And F.w. Represented By Adv. -
3) Chief Medical Officer, Kandhamal Mr.S.K.Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
04.03.2025
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 the
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused
the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"Under the above circumstances, it is therefore
prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously
pleased to issue Rule Nisi and calling upon the
Opposite Parties to show cause or show insufficient
cause then the said rule may be made absolute by
directing the opposite Parties to regularise the service
of the Petitioner against the available sanctioned
vacancy of post of driver or equivalent posts as the
Petitioner is continuing his service for since last 28
years with all service and financial benefits, within a
time limit as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
And further be pleased to pass any other
order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems just
and proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the Petitioner, who is working as a driver for last 28 years, has
approached the Opposite Parties for regularisation of his
service on several occasions; however no step was taken for
regularisation of services of the petitioner. He further
contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed on daily
wage basis and thereafter on contractual basis against
sanctioned post of driver. He further contended that similarly
situated employees have already been regularised in the
meantime. Further, referring to the judgments in the case of
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1 as well as in
State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Keshari and others,
2010(II) OLR (SC) 982, in Jaggo v. Union of India and
others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, in Sripal and
another V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st
January, 2025) in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024),
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite
Parties should have considered the case of the Petitioner for
regularisation of the services of the Petitioner in view of the
long period of service of almost 28 years. Since the service of
the Petitioner has not been regularised while regularising the
services of the similarly situated employees, being aggrieved
by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ Petition.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand
contended that although he has no instruction in the matter,
however on perusal of the Writ Petition, it appears that the
Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties earlier. He
further contended that recently on 06.02.2025 a representation
has been filed before the Opposite Party No.1 for
regularisation of his service. In such view of the matter,
learned Additional Standing Counsel has contended that he
has no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to
consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-
4, if the same is still pending, within a stipulated period of time,
strictly in accordance with law.
6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for
the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as the documents annexed to the
Writ Petition, further keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner
has been working for last 28 years, as has been alleged in the
Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ
Petition by directing the Opposite Party no.1 to consider the
representation of the Petitioner dated 06.02.2025 under
Annexure-4 in the light of the judgments referred to
hereinabove and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner
within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of
this order. Further, it is directed that the representation of the
petitioner shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law
by passing a speaking and reasoned order and the final
decision so taken on the representation of the Petitioner be
communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter.
Additionally, while considering the representation of the
Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 shall take into
consideration the Resolution of the G.A. Department,
Government of Odisha dated 17.09.2013 regarding regular
appointment of existing contractual employees.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
