Orissa High Court
Kichakeswar Das vs State Of Odisha on 28 March, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.30094 of 2021
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India).
Kichakeswar Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha, .... Opposite Parties
represented through its
Principal Secretary to
Government, Housing and
Urban Development
Department, Khordha
2. State of Odisha,
represented through its
Principal Secretary to
Government, Finance
Department, Khordha
3. Director, Municipal
Administration and Ex-
Officio Addl. Secretary to
Government of Odisha in
Housing and Urban
Development
Department, Khordha
4. Administrator-cum-
Collector & District
Magistrate, Khordha
5. Executive Officer,
Khordha Municipality,
Khordha
For Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. P. Das, ASC
W.P.(C) No.30094 of 2021
Page 1 of 7
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING AND JUDGMENT :28.03.2025
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;
"xxx xxx xxx
(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ
may be issued quashing the impugned order
dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Principal
Secretary to State Government in Housing and
Urban Development under Annexure-9 and
necessary direction may be made to the
opposite parties to regularize the services of
the petitioner against the post of Tax
Collector/Junior Assistant in Khordha
Municipality with immediate effect with all
consequential benefits;
(B) And any other order / orders or
direction/ directions may be issued so as to
give complete relief to the petitioner;
xxx xxx xxx"
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 Tax Collector. In this
context, he relies on the communication of the
Executive Officer, Khurda Municipality dated
22.08.2015 at Annexure-3, wherein the name of the
Petitioner appears at Serial No.20.
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
the said Surendra Nath Sahoo shall be dealt with in
the subsequent paragraph of this judgment.
5. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that his
services were utilized as Tax Collector and he is
similarly circumstanced with the said Surendra Nath
Sahoo referred to hereinabove. 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 the 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
retire on 30.07.2030. It is the further submission of
the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in spite of
the recommendation of the Municipality 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 and on account of parity with the said
Surendra Nath Sahoo the Petitioner seeks the relief
as quoted above.
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
Tax Collector 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. It is
further stated that the Municipality has no authority
to make the recommendation in question and as such
the same cannot be the basis for seeking
regularization.
7. So far as the assertions of the Petitioner that
Surendra Nath Sahoo, who is similarly circumstanced,
has been regularized is not controverted.
8. It is submitted that the Petitioner's earlier writ
Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.30577 of 2020 was disposed
of by order dated 12.11.2020 directing the Authority
consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the
decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra).
9. 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-3) addressed
to Director Municipal Administration, it is submitted
that the name of the Petitioner appears at serial
No.20 of the said list and that of one Surendra Nath
Sahoo appears at serial No.31. and name of Jaya
Krushna Senapati similarly placed Petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.4827 of 2020 is at Serial No.22. Referring
to the communication of the Executive Officer dated
03.04.2020(Annexure-4 series) attached to the
Deputy Secretary to Govt. H & UD Department
submitting information regarding the 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 as well as Jaya Krushna
Senapati appears in the said list. Since it is not
disputed that the Petitioner has been working for
more than three decades and the person 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.
10. 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.
11. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the claim of one Jaya
Krushna Senapati, who is similarly circumstanced
with the Petitioner, for regularization was allowed as
per the Judgment dated 06.03.2025 in W.P. (C) No.
4827 of 2020. And, it is submitted that the Petitioner
is at all fours with the said Jaya Krushna Senapati.
Such submission is not opposed by the counsel
for the State, on examination of the pleadings of both
the cases.
12. Taking into account the uncontroverted stand
of the Petitioner that employee similarly
circumstanced, namely, Surendra Nath Sahoo has
been regularized, and 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 into the
quagmire of uncertainty.
13. Hence, on a conspectus of materials on record
and taking into account the regularization of
Surendra Nath Sahoo as noted above and the
judgment passed in the case of Jaya Krushna
Senapati (supra), it is directed that the authorities
shall complete the exercise of regularization of
services of the Petitioner, with consequential benefits
at par, with Sri Surendra Nath Sahoo adverted to
hereinabove, within a period of six months from the
date of receipt/ production of this judgment.
14. The Writ Petition thus stands disposed of. No
costs.
( V.Narasingh )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 28th March, 2025/Santoshi
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Apr-2025 10:50:20
