Orissa High Court
Prasanna Kumar Swain vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6248 of 2025
Prasanna Kumar Swain ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Chandan Kumar
Mohanty
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.03.2025
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:
"In the above facts and circumstance, it is
humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to;
I. Admit this Writ Application and issue Rule Nisi
calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause
as to why the Petitioner will not be sanctioned
and accorded with all applicable service benefits
with effect from the date of completion of 10
years of his service with retrospective effect and
the due arrear salary and other financial and
administrative benefits shali not be accorded in
favour of the Petitioner.
II. If the Opposite Parties failed to show cause or
show insufficient cause, the Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to make the rule absolute and direct
the Opposite Parties to modify the Order dt.
05.10.2023 at Annexure 7 giving effect to
sanction of arrear salary and other
consequential service, financial as well as
administrative benefits to the Petitioner with
effect from the date of completion of 10 years of
service by following its own policy decision dt.
16th April, 2008 in true sense and spirit.
III. And this Hon'ble Court may grant such
further and other reliefs as the nature and
circumstances of the case may be require and as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
IV. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to
issue any other direction, appropriate Writ/s,
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially
the Petitioner was appointed by the Opposite Party No.5 on
19.06.2000. Thereafter he continued to discharge his duty as a
Laboratory Attendant in the Blood Bank. On completion of ten years'
of serving on 2010, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties
for regularization of his service. Although the Petitioner approached
repeatedly, however, no decision was taken till 2023. In the year
2023 a decision was taken vide office order dated 05.10.2023 by the
Director-Opposite Party No.5 to regularize the service of the
Petitioner along with all other similar situated persons w.e.f.
01.04.2018.
5. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present wit petition is
that although the Petitioner has been regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2018,
however, such office order regularizing the service should have been
passed on completion of ten years' of serving in the year 2010 which
has not been considered by the Opposite Parties. He further
contended that the arrear salary as is due and admissible to the
Petitioner, including the increments, have not been paid to the
Petitioner. He further contended that although a legal notice was
issued to the Opposite Party No.3 on behalf of the Petitioner on
01.06.2024 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition, however, the
Opposite Party Nos.3 & 5 have not taken any decision on such
representation. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the
Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the present writ petition. In course of his argument, learned counsel
for the Petitioner further contended that in view of the settled
position of law vide a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in (2006) 4
SCC-1, where it is observed that on completion of ten years of
service, the Petitioner's service was proposed to be regularized.
However, the same was done on completion of eighteen years' of
service w.e.f. 01.04.2018. In such view of the matter, learned counsel
for the Petitioner further submitted that the Opposite Parties be
directed to antedate the date of regularization, i.e. the service of the
Petitioner be regularized on completion of ten years' of service, i.e.
in the year 2010.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
since the issue is pending before the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 5, in the
shape of lawyer's notice under Annexure-9 as is evident from the
pleadings of the writ petition, she will have no objection in the event
this Court direct the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 5 to take a lawful
decision on the lawyer's notice sent on behalf of the Petitioner under
Annexure-9 in accordance with law within a stipulated period of
time.
7. 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, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition
at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 5
to consider and dispose of the lawyer's notice sent on behalf of the
Petitioner under Annexure-9 to the writ petition within a period of
three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of
today's order. The grievance of the Petitioner shall be redressed by
passing a speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid stipulated
period of time. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
8. 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
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 11-Mar-2025 09:44:19
