Orissa High Court
Nakul Charan Sahoo vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 12 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.13149 of 2025
Nakul Charan Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Biren Sankar Tripathy
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) The Director, Ayush, Odisha Represented By Adv. -
3) The Dist. Homeopathy Medical Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
Officer, Baripada
4) Medical Officer, Govt.
Homeopathy Dispensary, Keonjhar
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.05.2025
Order No.
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 the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner
with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the
case of the Petitioner and to regularize his service in the post of
Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman in Govt. Homeopathy Dispensary,
Jalasuan, Keonjhar within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that
the Petitioner was initially engaged as a part-time Sweeper-cum-
Night Watchman on 01.07.1998 as per order under Annexure-1 to the
writ application. He further submitted that although the initial
appointment was temporary in nature, however, the Petitioner
continued in service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
contended that in the process, the Petitioner has been working on
temporary basis for more than 27 years. However, the Opposite
Parties have not considered the case of the Petitioner for
regularization of his service even though there are regular posts that
are lying vacant in the Govt. Homeopathy Dispensary.
5. In the course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner referred to several judgments of the learned Supreme Court
as well as of this Court, specifically, Laxmidhar Sahoo vs. State of
Odisha & ors. decided in W.P.(C) No.4884 of 2020 by a Division
Bench of this Court on 24.09.2022. By referring to the aforesaid
judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted in the
said case the Petitioner, although was initially appointed irregularly,
later continued in service for more than two decades. As such, the
learned Division Bench directed regularization of the service of the
Petitioner. By drawing attention of this Court to the aforesaid order
passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court, learned counsel
for the Petitioner submitted that the present petitioner, who was also
initially appointed on temporary basis, stands in a similar footing
with the Petitioner in the aforesaid case. He further contended that
although the appointment of the Petitioner was irregular, however,
the same is not illegal. He further contended that in the meantime
almost three decades have elapsed. However, the service of the
Petitioner has not yet been regularized. As a result of which, the
Petitioner is not getting his regular scale of pay and other financial
benefits as are due and admissible to the regular employees. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that such conduct of the
Opposite Parties amounts to exploitation of the service of the
Petitioner, which has been prohibited under the law. In the course of
his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka -v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
6. At this stage, it is relevant to note that in a similar case, in
respect of Angul Municipality, this Court vide order dated
27.11.2014, in W.P.(C) No.26860 of 2013, directed the opposite
parties to regularize the services of the petitioner therein in view of
the Judgments of the Apex Court in Umadevi (supra) and State of
Karnataka-v.-M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. Against
the said order dated 27.11.2014, the State of Odisha as well as Angul
Municipality preferred W.A. No. 407 of 2015 which was dismissed
on 19.01.2016. Thereafter, against the order dated 19.01.2016 passed
in W.A. No. 407 of 2015, the State as well as the Angul Municipality
filed S.L.P. before the Apex Court which was dismissed by a
common order dated 13.05.2016. Consequentially, the State
authorities issued an office order dated 06.06.2016 for regularizing
the petitioner in the said writ application. Similar relief has already
been granted to another employee, Paradeep Municipality, in
W.P.(C) No. 10100 of 2010 disposed of on 07.07.2017. He also
referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jaggo v. Union of India & others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
3826. Therefore, since the petitioner in the present case is in a similar
footing to the abovementioned employees, similar benefit should be
extended to him by regularizing his service as expeditiously as
possible.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
he does not have any instruction with regard to the facts of the
present case. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the
Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties before
approaching this Court. On such ground, learned counsel for the State
submitted that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to
consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the settled position
of law within a stipulated period of time, then he will have no
objection to the same.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
materials on record, further keeping in view the fact that the
Petitioner has been working uninterruptedly for a period of 27 years,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application at
the stage of admission by directing the Petitioner to approach the
Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 along with a certified copy of this order
within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the
Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 shall consider the case of the Petitioner,
and in the event any opportunity of hearing is sought for the same
shall also be provided, and dispose of the representation by passing a
speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of such representation. Additionally, it is needless to
mention here that while considering the case of the Petitioner the
Opposite Parties shall take into consideration the judgments referred
to hereinabove. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such a decision.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
