[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prasanna Kumar Roul vs State Of Odisha &Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.28051 of 2022
Prasanna Kumar Roul ..... Petitioner
Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha &Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Das, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
08.04.2026
Order No.04
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. Parties
calling upon them to file show cause as to why a
direction shall not be issued quash the order of rejection
dated 7.9.2022 under Annexure-8 which has been passed
contrary to the order passed by the Conciliation officer
dated 14.5.2015 under Annexure-4 and after hearing the
parties be pleased quash / set aside the order of rejection
dated 7.9.2022 issued by the Opp. party no. 2 under
Annxure-8.
A further direction issued to the opp. Parties to
regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 6.9.1993 i.e.
from the date the services of the juniors were regularized
which has also admitted by the Opp. Party no.2 in order
dated 7.9.2022 and release all service and financial
benefits w.e.f.6.9.1993 to till date within a date as filed
by this Hon'ble Court;
Any other pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as deemed fit and proper;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as
in duty bound, ever pray."
4. It is contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Casual Labour in
the establishment of Opp. Party No. 4 w.e.f.24.05.1989 and the said
fact is also admitted in the gradation list of M.R. Attendant/Casual
Labour, so published on 31.03.1993. In the said list, Petitioner's
name finds place at Sl. No. 52.
4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner was placed at Sl.
No. 52 of the gradation list under annexure-1, but his juniors so
placed at Sl. No. 65 & 78 were regularized w.e.f.06.09.1993. It is
further contended that Petitioner when raised objection to such
regularization of his juniors, he was prevented to discharge his duty
w.e.f.01.10.2006. Accordingly, Petitioner moved the labour forum
and ultimately the dispute was settled by way of settlement under
Annexure-4 dtd.14.05.2015. The terms of settlement reads as
follows:-
"1. It is agreed by and between the parties that the
workman shall be taken back into employment as usual
in daily wage basis w. e. f. 18.05.2015.
2. It is agreed by and between the parties that the
workman shall be engaged in the fodder section of the
Livestock Breeding and Diary Farm on daily wage basis.
In case of future requirement of manpower in diary
section the case of the workmen shall be considered for
his engagement in the particular section by considering
his past 18 years of experience in the same section.
3. It is agreed by and between the parties that the period
from 01.10.2006 to till date of his engagement shall be
treated as no duty and no pay."
4.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner in terms of the
settlement was allowed to continue as Casual Labour, but no step
was taken to regularize him on the face of his juniors being
regularized w.e.f.06.09.1993. Petitioner accordingly made various
applications and ultimately approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.
No. 2048(C) of 2018. The said application on being transferred to
this Court was disposed of vide order dtd.12.04.2022 under
Annexure-6, with a direction on the Opp. Parties to consider the
claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization in the
light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, State of
Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L. Keshari & Ors. reported in 2010 (II)
OLR (SC) 982 as well as in the case of Amarkanti Rai vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265.
4.3. In the said writ petition a plea was also there that, Petitioner is
eligible to get the benefit of regularization from the date his juniors
were so regularized w.e.f.06.09.1993.
4.4. It is however contended that without proper appreciation of the
Petitioner's claim and the order passed by this Court under
Annexure-6, prayer of the Petitioner was rejected vide the
impugned order dtd.07.09.2022 under Annexure-3, inter alia on the
ground that Petitioner has remained absent from his duty for the
period from 01.10.2006 to 17.05.2015 and accordingly not eligible
for his absorption.
4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner taking this Court
to the terms of settlement available under Annexure-4, contended
that as per the terms of settlement the period from 01.10.2006 to
17.05.2015 was treated as No Work No Pay, but service continuity
of the Petitioner was directed to be maintained. It is accordingly
contended that on the face of such settlement so arrived at in
between the Petitioner and the Opp. Parties, the ground on which
Petitioner's claim has been rejected vide the impugned order, is not
sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is contended that with
quashing of the impugned order, Opp. Parties be directed to
regularize the Petitioner from the date his juniors were so
regularized as against the Group D post w.e.f.06.09.1993.
5. Mr. S. Das, learned ASC on the other hand made his submission
basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp.
Party No. 2. It is contended that since Petitioner on the face of the
regularization of his juniors on 06.09.1993 as against regular
Group-D post, never raised any objection till 01.10.2006, Petitioner
is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of such regularization
from the date his juniors were regularised.
5.1. It is also contended that as per the terms of settlement arrived
at under Annexure-4, since the period from 01.10.2006 to
17.05.2015 was treated as No duty No Pay, the said period cannot
be taken as service period of the Petitioner and it is to be treated as
break in service. Stand taken in Para 7, 9 & 10 of the counter
affidavit reads as follows:-
"7. That, it is submitted that the Petitioner was initially
engaged as Daily Casual Labourer at the Bovine Breeding
Research & Bull Mother Farm (Formerly LBD Farm),
Khapuria, Cuttack w.e.f. 24.05.1989. Sri Sankarsan Behera
and Sk. Laikuddin are Juniors to the Petitioner and were
engaged as Daily Casual Labourers at the BBR & BM Farm,
Khapuria w.e.f. 16.01.1990 and 06.07.1991 respectively.
Both of them were appointed in Regular Group-D post w.e.f.
06.09.1993. Similarly, Sri Abhiram Sethy who was initially
engaged as Daily Casual Labourer w.e.f 12.06.1989 who has
been appointed in Group-D regular post w.e.f. 12.01.1996.
In terms of the principle of constructive res judicata,
the grounds/reliefs not espoused in the previous proceedings
or espoused and not adjudicated are deemed as decided and
such grounds/reliefs raised in subsequent proceeding would
be barred by principle of constructive res judicata.
Applying the Principle of Constructive res judicata, in
the instant case, it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner did
not raise objection when his juniors were absorbed in
regular post and he was excluded from getting such benefits
and at this point of time claiming such benefits on the part of
the Petitioner is not justifiable.
xxx xxx xxx
9. That, it is submitted that the Finance Department, Govt. of
Odisha vide Resolution No.31715/F, dated 04.09.2012 have
formulated a scheme for the benefits of Casual Daily Wage
Labourers engaged in different Govt. Establishments prior to
12.04.1993 by conferring them with "Temporary Status" in
the first instance and then to provide scope for their
absorption against regular Group-D vacancies. The
eligibility criteria for conferment of "Temporary Status" as
prescribed in Paragraph No.5 of the said Resolution is as
follows:-
i. To be eligible for conferment of "Temporary Status" such
persons must have been engaged prior to 12.04.1993 i.e.
before the imposition of ban on such engagement.
ii. They must have rendered continuous service since their
initial engagement. Engagement of at least 240 days in a year
shall be construed as a complete year of engagement for this
purpose.
iii. Date of initial Engagement i.e. prior to 12.04.1993 and
continuity of service shall have to be certified by the
concerned Head office and countersigned by the concerned
Heads of Department.
10. That, it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner submitted
a representation to the Opp. Party No.2 i.e. the Director, AH
& VS, Odisha, Cuttack on 24.03.2014 with a prayer to
regularize his service which was forwarded to the Govt. in F
& ARD Department, Odisha for consideration. The Govt. in
F & ARD Department examined the matter and rejected the
case of the Petitioner with a view that the Petitioner does not
fulfil the eligibility criteria for conferment of "Temporary
Status" as per Finance Department Resolution
No.31715/F, dated 04.09.2012. Accordingly, the views of the
Govt. was communicated to the Petitioner vide Letter
No.10408, dated 30.05.2014 by the Opp. Party No.2. Such
rejection of the Petitioner's request vide letter dated
30.05.2014 has not been challenged in the present writ
petition.
Copy of the Letter No.10408, dated 30.05.2014 of the
Opp. Party No.2 is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/2."
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner remained
absent from his duty for the period from 01.10.2006 to 17.05.2015,
because of such break in service, he was held not eligible to get the
benefit of regularization and his claim has been rightly rejected vide
order under Annexure-8.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner
was engaged as a Casual Labour w.e.f.24.05.1989 and the same is
also not disputed in view of the gradation list available under
Annexure-1. From the counter affidavit so filed, it is not disputed
that persons placed below the Petitioner in the gradation list under
Annexure-1, were regularized as against Group-D post
w.e.f.06.09.1993.
6.1. This court after going through the settlement available under
Annexure-4, finds that the period from 01.10.2006 till the date of
reengagement of the Petitioner on 17.05.2015, was treated as 'No
Duty No Pay'.
6.2. Since in the settlement nothing was reflected that the period
from 01.10.2006 to till the date of reengagement will not be treated
as continuity in service and it was only indicated that the period will
be treated as 'No Duty No Pay', this Court is of the view that the
ground on which Petitioner's claim has been rejected vide the
impugned order under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of
law. In view of the nature of settlement available under Annexure-
4, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner's engagement is to be
taken from 24.05.1989, without any break.
6.3. Since it is not disputed that juniors to the Petitioner have got
the benefit of regularization as against Group-D post
w.e.f.06.09.1993 and Petitioner has retired in the meantime, this
Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.07.09.2022 under
Annexure-8, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to absorb the Petitioner as
against a Group-D post from the date his juniors were so
regularized w.e.f.06.09.1993, but on notional basis, however with
release of his retiral benefits under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.
6.4. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to complete the entire
exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt
of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
