Orissa High Court
Anita Barik vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 3 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11766 of 2025
Anita Barik ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C.
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.
3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction
to the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 4 to regularize the service of the
Petitioner taking into account her continuous service of more
than nine years and in terms of the principle decided in Secretary
State of Karnatake and others v.Umadevi (3) and others,
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka and others vrs.
M.L.Kesari and others involving SLP(C) No.15774 of 2006.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner was engaged as Pharmacist upon being selected by the
Selection Committee and approval of Collector & D.M.,
Sambalpur under the administrative control of Opposite Party
No.4. She has already rendered more than nine years of service
and therefore, seeks for regularization of her service in view of
the judgment passed by the apex Court in Secretary State of
Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4
SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka and others vrs. M.L.Kesari
and others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006 and 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.
5. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner and after going through the records, it appears
that the Petitioner has rendered service for more than nine years
on monthly remuneration on contractual basis, but she has been
working continuously against regular vacancies of the
Pharmacist. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner is squarely
covered by the ratio decided in the cases cited supra. In that view
of the matter, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition directing
the Opposite Parties No.1 and 4 to consider the case of the
Petitioner and regularize his services keeping in view the
judgments in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and
others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State
of Karnatake and others Vrs. M.L.Keshari and others,
involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006 and 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 and also
the resolution of the G.A. Department dated 17.09.2013 and
letter dated 11.12.2020 vide Annexure-9 within a period of two
months from the date of communication of a copy of this order
by the Petitioner and grant consequential service benefits as due
admissible to him.
6. With the aforesaid observations/ directions the Writ
Petition is allowed.
7. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 03-May-2025 16:52:01
