Orissa High Court
Kalidas Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 20 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7767 of 2025
Kalidas Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Laxmikanta Mohanty
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.03.2025
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:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice
to the opp.parties calling upon them to file show
cause as to why:
(i) a direction shall not be issued to
regularize the service of the petitioner
against the post of driver from the date of
availability of the post in the office of the
Opp.party No.3 retrospectively and release
all service and financial benefits in his
favour, taking into consideration the earlier
order passed by this Hon'ble Court in OJC
No.10586 of 2001 dated 09.05.2011 under
Annexure-1 as well as judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in between
Amarkanti Ray Versus State of Bihar and
others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 and the
judgment rendered in between Jaggo Versus
Union of India in SLP No.5580/2024 and
Anita and others Verus Union of India in
SLP No. 11086/24 dated 20.12.2024
(ii) And after hearing the parties be pleased
to direct the opp.parties to regularize the
service of the petitioner against the post of
driver retrospectively from the date
available of vacancies in the office of the
opp.party no.3 and release all consequential
service and financial benefits in his favour
at an earliest time, as the petitioner is going
to superannuate from service w.e.f.
31.5.2025.
(iii) The opp parties be further directed to
release all arrears of the petitioner within a
date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court
And pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially engaged as a driver on DLR basis on
04.07.1991. Thereafter, the Petitioner was disengaged from service in
the year 1994. Being aggrieved by such order of disengagement, the
Petitioner initially approached this Court by filing OJC No.10586 of
2001. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.2011
disposed of the writ petition vide order under Annexure-1. While
disposing of the above noted writ petition, the Hon'ble Division
Bench has held that the engagement of the Opposite Party No.6 (in
the aforesaid writ petition) by ignoring the case of the Petitioner is
illegal and not in accordance with law and issued a further direction
to the Opposite Parties to engage the Petitioner in the post of Driver
and with regard to the regularization the service of the Petitioner, it
was directed that the same shall be done in accordance with law. The
aforesaid direction was given after setting aside the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-6 to the above noted writ
petition.
5. After disposal of the above noted writ petition, the Opposite
Party No.3, vide order dated 01.10.2012 reinstated the Petitioner in
service by conferring upon him the temporary status, under
Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Since the date of his reinstatement in
service, the Petitioner has been continuing his service as a Driver.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that
although the Petitioner has been serving for a long time, his service
has not been regularize despite there existing regular vacancies in the
post of Driver. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite
Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated
09.05.2011 passed in the above noted writ petition preferred by the
Petitioner has categorically directed to consider the case of the
Petitioner for regularization in accordance with law. Despite such
direction the case of the Petitioner has not been considered for
regularization of his service. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel
for the Petitioner referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. Vs. Abdul
Rehman Khanday & Ors. decided in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.5873 of 2025 vide order dated 07.03.2025, contended that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case in which there was a
direction by the High Court, however, the same was not carried out
by the State-Opposite Parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide
order dated 07.03.2025, while dismissing the SLP has observed that
the case is one which is fit for imposing exemplary costs on the
delinquent officers besides recommending strong disciplinary action
against them. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refrained
from doing so keeping in view the pendency of the contempt
proceeding before the learned Single Judge. With the aforesaid
observation, the above noted appeal was disposed of by requesting
the learned Single Judge Bench of the High Court to dispose of the
pending contempt proceeding as expeditiously as possible.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
he has no instructions in the matter. He further contended that the
order dated 09.05.2011 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition does
not reveal that there was a direction to regularize the service of the
Petitioner. He further contended that the actual direction of the
Division Bench in order dated 09.05.2011 has already been carried
out since long. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
State submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and
accordingly the same should be dismissed.
8. Having heard 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 factual background of the present case, this Court deems
it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks
from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do
well to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his
service against any vacancy. Taking into consideration the period of
service the Petitioner has rendered in the meantime and subject to his
eligibility and availability of the post, the case of the Petitioner for
regularization of his service shall be considered by taking into
consideration the order under Annexure-4 to the writ petition within a
period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified
copy of today's order. Any final decision so taken on the
representation of the Petitioner be communicated to the Petitioner
forthwith preferably within seven days thereafter.
9. 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
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 5 of 5.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Mar-2025 10:29:46
