Kumari Annapurna Baral vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 4883 Ori

Orissa High Court

Kumari Annapurna Baral vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 11 March, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              WP(C) No.4173 of 2025
            Kumari Annapurna Baral          .....   Petitioner
                                                                    Represented By Adv. -
                                                                    Nihal Rath

                                                 -versus-
            1) State Of Odisha                              .....       Opposite Parties
            2) Engr In Chief, Water Resources,                      Represented By Adv. -
            Bbsr                                                    Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
            3) Chief Engr And Basin Manager,
            Subarnarekha And Budhabalanga
            Basin
            4) Supdt. Engr, Subarnarekha
            Irrigation Circle

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                                 ORDER

Order No.                                        11.03.2025
   01.       1.     This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
             /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as 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 admit the writ application, to issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed, upon showing insufficient cause/ no cause make the said rule absolute, issue writ/writs in the nature of

i.Mandamus directing Opposite Parties to take steps for regularisation of service of this petitioner taking into account her long tenure of service in the regular sanctioned post of Despatcher w.e.f. 29.11.1994 and extend all consequential service and financial benefits in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated period of this Hon'ble Court keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is going to retire w.e.f. 28.02.2025.

ii. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a junior Clerk from Junior grade Typist against a deputation vacancy on temporary basis w.e.f. 08.11.1992. Thereafter, she was appointed as a despatcher in the regular scale of pay against a sanctioned vacant post w.e.f. 29.11.1994. On 04.12.1995, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service pursuant to the order passed by the learned O.A.T. in O.A. No.2324 of 1995 dated 22.11.1995.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture contended that the petitioner had approached the learned O.A.T. by filing O.A. No.2324 of 1995 with a prayer for regularisation of his service. The learned OAT vide order dated 07.07.1999 disposed of the said O.A. with a direction to the Opposite Parties to allow the petitioner to participate in the regular recruitment case along with other reveal candidates and till then the petitioner shall continue in service. He further contended that despite such direction no such regular recruitment test was held and as such the petitioner has not got an opportunity to participate on such regular recruitment test as has been directed by the learned OAT vide order dated 07.07.1999.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that while

working as such service of the petitioner was placed under the disposal of Subarnarekha Irrigation Project vide order dated 06.07.2000. In the year 2012, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal to revise the pay scale and to grant for scale of pay as has been provided under the ORSP Rules, the said O.A. No.1907 of 2012 disposed of on 12.05.2017 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to revise the pay scale of the petitioner and to grant scale of pay as per the ORSP Rule 2008. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted revised scale of pay vide order dated 26.12.2018.

7. While this was the position, the petitioner again approached the Opposite Parties with a prayer for regularisation of his service by filing a representation on 13.02.2023 under Annexure-7 to the writ application. In the meantime the petitioner has taken retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2025. However no decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner continuing his prayer for regularisation of is service. Being aggrieved such inaction the Opposite Parties the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the petitioner was not appointed by following any recruitment procedure. Therefore, his case was never considered for regularisation. He further contended that the petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation under Annexure-7 to the writ application and in the event such representation still pending, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider said representation under Annexure-7 in accordance with law and dispose of the same within stipulated period of time.

9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions, further keeping in view factual background of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-7 to the writ application strictly in accordance with law by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826, in Sripal and Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal No.8158- 8179 of 2024. Further the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of in the light of aforesaid direction by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months form the date of communication of a certified copy of today's order by the petitioner. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

Rubi

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack