[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sri Kailash Chandra Pal vs State Of Orissa Represented .... Opp. ... on 7 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P(C). No.27313 of 2017
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
....
Sri Kailash Chandra Pal .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Orissa represented .... Opp. Parties
through The Secretary,
Department of Health & Family
Welfare
2. Chief District Medical Officer
3. Khetrabashi Sahu, Peon, PHC
4. Gangadhar Pradhan,
Attendant, Govt. Hospital
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - M/s. A.K. Mohanty-B, S.R
Mohapatra, Advocates
For Opp. Parties - Mr. S.K. Jee
Additional Government Advocate
....
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 07.04.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 5
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
A daily wager is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for
assailing State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 20.02.2017, whereby
his claim for regularization made in O.A. No.3535 of 2013, has been
negatived.
2. After service of notice, the official OPs have entered appearance
through the learned AGA, who vehemently opposes the petition essentially
contending that the claim was made by the Petitioner on the principle of
parity, two of his juniors having been regularized by the authorities vide
order dated 02.02.1999; that the said regularization itself was defective and
therefore, there is no scope for invoking the principle of parity qua them.
He tells us that a legally wrong order cannot deliver a judiciable right in
favour of another on the principle of parity.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the
following reasons.
3.1. Petitioner admittedly came to be engaged as a daily wager w.e.f.
07.02.1996 in Group-D. OP Nos.3 & 4 herein were also engaged on daily
wage basis respectively w.e.f. 15.02.1996 & 13.03.1996. This fact is not in
dispute. Petitioner's OA No.1869/1999 came to be disposed off by the
Tribunal vide order dated 27.01.2000, directing consideration of his case
for regularization keeping in view the parity principle qua OP Nos. 3 & 4
herein, who have chosen to remain absent despite service of notice. The
claim of Petitioner was again rejected vide order dated 22.08.2005 and
therefore, he filed OA No.974 of 2005 wherein the Tribunal, vide order
dated 28.10.2005, directed consideration of his claim for regularization on
the ground that the other juniors were already regularized.
The above order was put in challenge by the OP-State in W.P.(C)
No.9335/2007 and the same came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2009. Therefore, the fact that two of
Petitioner's juniors were regularized and as a consequence, his claim has to
be considered on parity basis remains intact, having received impremator at
the hands of said Bench. That being the position, we fail to understand how
the Government could reject claim of the Petitioner vide order dated
16.04.2013 and further we are awestruck by the fact that the Tribunal too
dismissed his OA No.3535/2013 vide impugned order. The Apex Court in
Y.B. Patil v. Y.L. Patil, AIR 1977 SC 392 has held that the doctrine of res
judicata operates in Indian Legal System in successive stages and therefore,
a finding of fact or a norm by the Co-ordinate Bench would res judicate the
grounds urged by the State for denying relief to the Petitioner.
3.2. Added to the above, the Medical Chief Officer of PHC, Godipada,
vide certificate dated 20.03.2026 has said as under:
"TO WHOM-SO-OVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that in pursuance to Order No.437
dt.04/02/2010 of CDMO, Nayagarh Sri Kailash Chandra
Pal, Son of Iswar Chandra Pal, At-Jayakrushnaprasad,
Po/Dist-Nayagarh worked as Attendant in PHC, Godipada
since dt.06-02-2010 to till now without entire satisfaction.
During his working period I found his a sincere, honest,
hardworking, dedicated employee with a professional attitude
and very good job knowledge. He is friendly in nature and
character is well.
I wish him ever success in life."
Thus, the services of Petitioner have been continued uninterruptedly and to
the satisfaction of the authority. Though the certificate mentions about a
short break in service, that would pale into insignificance because of Co-
ordinate Bench's order dated 02.12.2009 entered in W.P.(C) No.9335/2007,
wherein the Tribunal's order made in OA No.974/2005 came to be
affirmed.
3.3. The case of Petitioner largely fits into the parameters laid down by
the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034 and by this
Court in Sitaram Behera v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.8236 of 2024.
There is a very strong presumption that where a daily wager is continued in
service uninterruptedly without orders of the Court or Tribunal, such
services are eminently needed for the benefit of the State, subject to all just
exceptions into which argued case of the State does not fit. All these
aspects have not entered the fray of consideration at the hands of the
Tribunal and as a result, the Petitioner has been put to a great prejudice
warranting our interference for setting the same at naught.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed; a Writ
of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal;
Petitioner's OA No.3535/2013 having been favoured, a Writ of
Mandamus issues to the OP Nos.1 & 2 to regularize the services of the
Petitioner with effect from the date his immediate juniors were
regularized, i.e., 02.02.1999. However, in the fitness of facts, although
seniority shall be given to the Petitioner, the financial benefits, he shall
be entitled to ten years of daily wage service, as the law then was.
This Writ has to be complied within an outer limit of eight
weeks and the report of compliance be filed with the Registrar
General of this Court within one week next following, failing which
the answering OPs run the risk of contempt proceedings.
The State shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) only to the Petitioner for avoidable making him approach
the Tribunal and this Court again and again, within eight weeks,
failing which it attracts additional levy of Rs.100/- per day for the first
30 days and Rs.200/- for the days next following.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 07th day of April 2026 /Madhusmita
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
