Orissa High Court

Jaya Krushna Senapati vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 6 March, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P.(C) No.4827 of 2020

      In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
      Constitution of India.
                             ------------------

       Jaya Krushna Senapati                 ....           Petitioner

                                  -versus-

      1. State of Odisha                 ....       Opposite Parties
      2. Director, Municipal
      Administration & Ex-Officio,
      Additional Secretary to Govt., H &
      UD Department
      3. Administrator-cum-Collector &
      District Magistrate, Khurda
      4. Executive Officer, Khurda
      Municipality, Khurda


      For Petitioner             :   Mr. P.K. Mohapatra,
                                     Advocate


      For O.Ps.1 to 3            :   Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
      For O.P.4                      None


                      CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

          DATE OF HEARING AND JUDGMENT : 06.03.2025




W.P.(C) No.4827 of 2020                                  Page 1 of 7
        V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief.

"To issue appropriate writ directing the Opposite Parties to regularize the petitioner in the post of Work Sarkar taking into account his 25 years of continuous service as has been done in other similar situated persons as per Government Circular and in terms of the principles decided in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and other vrs. Umadevi (3) and others: 2006(4) SCC 1, commuted value of pension and other consequential benefits forthwith preferably within a stipulated period as this Hon'ble Court as has been extended to other similar situated persons."

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was engaged as a D.L.R. since 12.08.1994 by the Khurda Municipality and was discharging the duties of Work Sarkar. In this context, he relies on the communication of the Executive Officer, Khurda Municipality dated 22.08.2015 at Annexure-6, wherein the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.22.

4. It is apt to note that the name of one Sri Surendra Nath Sahoo appears at Serial No.31 of the said list. The service particulars of petitioner vis-à- vis Surendra Nath Sahoo shall be dealt with in the relevant paragraph of this judgment.

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his services were utilized as Work Sarkar and he is similarly circumstanced with said Surendra Nath Sahoo referred to herein above. The said Surendra Nath Sahoo approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.11394 of 2019 and by order dated 16.10.2020, this Court directed for consideration of his case referring the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vrs. Uma Devi & others: (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as State of Karnataka & others vrs. M.L. Kesari & others: (2010) 9 SCC 247.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case of said Surendra Nath Sahoo, who is at all fours with the present petitioner, though his services were regularized, yet the petitioner has been left in the lurch and he is going to be superannuated on 31.05.2026. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the recommendation of the Municipality at Annexure-2 dated 18.07.2024

addressed to the Under Secretary to Government in the Housing & Urban Development Department, which is the Nodal Department, the case of the petitioner is being ignored. Hence, inter alia, on the ground of discrimination, the petitioner seeks interference of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Das opposed such prayer and referring to the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner was working as a Work Sarkar and since the post was abolished, his services cannot be regularized and on that score alone, it cannot be said that the petitioner is similarly circumstanced with Surendra Nath Sahoo.

7. On a perusal of the letter recommending the case of the petitioner by the Municipal Council of Khurda, it can be seen that the Municipality was conscious of the fact that the incumbent Work Sarkar retired with effect from 31.10.2011 and the post is lying vacant to be filled up and the present petitioner, who is working on consolidated pay, is also managing the assignment of Work Sarkar exclusively on account of his experience and considering the same, his case was recommended, since he has been working since 12.08.1994 diligently and has completed 20 years of service as D.L.R.

8. So far as the assertions of the petitioner that Surendra Nath Sahoo, who is similarly circumstanced, has been regularized is not controverted.

9. It is submitted that the petitioner's earlier writ petition was disposed of by order dated 10.02.2020 directing the Authority to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra).

10. Assailing the same, the Opposite Parties filed an intra-Court Appeal bearing W.A. No.596 of 2021 and by order dated 29.11.2021, the matter was remanded to the Single Bench, inter alia, on the ground that the writ petition was disposed of on the very first day of listing without giving any opportunity to the State-Appellant.

11. The petitioner has reiterated his claim for regularization by filing a rejoinder. Referring to the communication dated 22.08.2015 of the Executive Officer, Khurda, Municipality (Annexure-6) addressed to Director Municipal Administration, it is submitted that the name of the Petitioner appears at serial No.22 of the said list and that of one Surendra Nath Sahoo appears at serial No.31. Referring to the communication of the Executive Officer dated 03.04.2020 attached to the Deputy Secretary to

Govt. H & UD Department submitting information DLR/NMR engaged after 12.04.1993 in Khurda Municipality, it is submitted that name of the Petitioner as well as that of said Surendra Nath Sahoo, appears in the said list. Since it is not disputed that the Petitioner is working for a period of 20 years and persons similarly circumstanced, namely, Mr. Surendra Nath Sahoo has been regularized, this Court does not find any rhyme or reason to deny the Petitioner similar benefits of regularization.

12. In this context, this court takes the cue from the decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vrs. Union of India & others: 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Shripal & another Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad: 2025 SCC Online SC 221, wherein referring to the earlier decisions the Apex Court reiterated that because of weak bargaining power, there ought not to be exploitation and the case at hand is one of such kind.

13. Taking into account the uncontroverted stand of the Petitioner that employee is similarly circumstanced, namely, Surendra Nath Sahoo has been regularized on conspectus of materials on record, this Court is persuaded to direct for regularization at par with the said Surendra Nath

Sahoo instead of directing the Authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization, which is normally the norm in service jurisprudence. Since, this Court is of the humble view that such a direction would amount to pushing the Petitioner, who is aged about 59 years and on the verge of superannuation into the quagmire of litigation.

14. Hence it is directed that the authorities shall complete exercises of regularization of services of the Petitioner, with consequential benefits at par, with Sri Surendra Nath Sahoo adverted to hereinabove, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of this judgment.

15. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. No costs.

(V. Narasingh) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6th March, 2025/Manoj, AR-cum-Sr. Secy.

Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Mar-2025 16:43:54