Orissa High Court
Dhiren Kumar Pradhan vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 3 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.12106 of 2025
Dhiren Kumar Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Swadhin Kesari Singh
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director, Municipal Administration Represented By Adv. -
Cum Ex Officio, Addl. Secy To Mr.U.C.Jena,ASC
Govt.,h And Ud Development
3) Collector And Dist.magistrate
4) Executive Officer, Rairakhol
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
03.05.2025
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 Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"In view of the above stated facts and
circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may graciously
be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the
Opp. parties to show cause as to why the service
of the Petitioner in the post of Tax Collector in the
office of the Notified Area Council (NAC),
Rairakhol in the District of Sambalpur shall not be
regularized with all consequential service benefits,
keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Jaggo vs.
Union of India & Ors. decided on 20.12.2024 in
Civil Appeal No.14831 of 2024 and 14832 of
2024 and in the case of Shripal & Anr. Vrs.
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad decided on 31.01.2025
in Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024,
And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or
show insufficient cause this Hon'ble Court may
make the said rule absolute by directing the Opp.
Parties regularize the service of the Petitioner in
the post of Tax Collector in the office of the
Notified Area Council (NAC). Rairakhol in the
District of Sambalpur with all consequential
service benefits, keeping in view the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on
20.12.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024
and 14832 of 2024 and in the case of Shripal &
Anr. Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad decided on
31.01.2025 in Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024,
AND further be pleased to issue any other
appropriate writ/writs, rule/rules or order/orders,
direction/ directions as may be deemed fit and
proper in the interest of justice."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that
although the Petitioner has been working since 18.03.2000
as a D.L.R. under the Rairakhol NAC on DLR basis.
However, after rendering several decades of service, his
service has not been regularized. He further contended that
although the Petitioner had earlier approached the Opposite
Parties with a prayer for regularization of his service,
however, the same has not been considered by the Opposite
Parties. He further contended that there are vacancies in the
regular post in which the Petitioner can be accommodated. In
the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner also
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of 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 and Secretary, State of
Karnataka -v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 &
Secretary.
5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner further drawing attention of this Court to letter
dated 11.06.2013 under Annexure-4 contended that the
Executive Officer, NAC, Rairakhol, Opposite Party No.4 has
already written to the Govt. thereby requesting for
regularization of the service of the employees working under
the Rairakhol NAC on DLR basis. However, no decision has
been taken on the same by the Govt. as of now.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
contended that the Petitioner has not approached the
competent authority for consideration of his case for
regularization of the service. He further contended that in the
event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the
case of the Petitioner in accordance with law, then he will
have no objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for
the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts
as well as materials on record, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by
granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite
Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all
the grounds along with all supporting documents including a
copy of letter under Annexure-4 to the writ application along
with a certified copy of this order within a period of three
weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party
No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner
keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above noted judgments within a period of three
months from the date of the Petitioner approaches the
Opposite Party No.2. The representation of the Petitioner
shall be considered and disposed of by passing a speaking
and reasoned order. Any decision so taken by the Opposite
Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within a ten
days from the date of taking such a decision.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-May-2025 16:09:08
