[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sukesh Chandra Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 10 April, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1986 of 2013
Sukesh Chandra Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Satyajit Behera, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Satyabrata Panda, ASC
Mr. Brundaban Rout, Advocate for O.P. No.4
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 10.04.2026
No.
09. 1. Heard Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State besides Mr. Rout,
learned counsel for opposite party No.4.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing
the impugned letter dated 10th January, 2013 at Annexure-11 of
the Government in directing opposite party No.4 to disengage
him and the consequential order dated 19th January, 2013 i.e.
Annexure-12 and further to direct the opposite parties to allow
discharging the duties as he was prior to the decision on
disengagement and for having validly recruited by opposite
party No.4 and direction to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to
regularize his service in the post of Junior Steno and to fix the
pay accordingly and to grant all others service and financial
benefits with respective effect on the grounds stated.
3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was appointed as a Steno-cum-Typist in the
time scale of Rs.780-1160/- with usual DA as admissible under
the rules vide Annexure-1. It is submitted that the post of Junior
Steno was created for the NAC by order dated 25 th June, 1993
by the Government in Housing and Urban Development
Department i.e. Annexure-2 and it was followed by the
resolutions of the NAC as per Annexures-3 and 4. The
contention is that vide Annexure-5, the overage of the
petitioner was condoned in terms of Rule 408(2) of the
Municipal Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules)
by a decision of the Government dated 4 th November, 1995.
The submission is that after the engagement of the petitioner
with the initial appointment having taken place on 9th June,
1992, it was alleged to be illegal with complaint received in
that regard communicated to the NAC by the Government vide
Annexure-6. The submission is that notwithstanding the
complaint received, the NAC recommended the case of the
petitioner for continuance in service as per Annexure-8. It is
submission that the NAC in response to the complaint against
the petitioner responded vide Annexure-8 and intimated the
Government that the petitioner was appointed as Steno-cum-
Typist officer by order dated 9th June, 1992 against the post
created by the Council in its resolution (No.7 dated 20th April,
1992) in pursuance of the decision of the Selection Committee
on temporary basis and accordingly he joined and
subsequently, proposal for sanction to the creation of post was
submitted to the Government in Housing and Urban
Development Department through the District Magistrate,
Sambalpur to regularize the appointment and at last, upon
receiving sanction, his service was regularized against the post
of Junior Steno, whereafter, the overage was condoned in view
of Annexure-5. Notwithstanding, the aforesaid development,
Mr. Behera, learned counsel submits that the Government
insisted upon removal of the petitioner and finally, it was
followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-2 by opposite
party No.4. Mr. Behera, learned counsel would submit that the
petitioner was allowed to continue in the said post despite
Annexure-12 in view of the Court's interim order dated 1st
February, 2013 in Misc. Case No.1761 of 2013. Referring to
the rejoinder affidavit, it is further submitted by Mr. Behera,
learned counsel that pursuant to the petitioner's appointment
upon receiving his joining report, a Service Book was opened
as per Annexure-26 reflecting therein that he was initially
appointed as Steno-cum-Typist re-designated as Junior
Stenographer. Referring to the legal opinion obtained by
opposite party No.4 as per Annexure-27, it is submitted that
such appointment of the petitioner was not held to be illegal.
The submission is that the petitioner joined in 1992 and as
against a post created, he was adjusted with the overage being
condoned but thereafter, alleging the appointment as illegal
upon receiving a complaint, the order of removal was followed
in 2013. The contention is that the ban and the cut-off date i.e.
12th April, 1993 is not to be into account for that the
appointment of the petitioner is of the year 1992. That apart,
according to Mr. Behera, learned counsel, in a similarly
situated case, this Court directed regularization of service in
Smt. Santilata Mahakud Vrs. State of Odisha & others in
W.P.(C) No.21723 of 2016. Referring to a decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench in W.A. No.1445 of 2024 (State of Odisha &
another Vrs. Barendra Krishna Nayak & another) and
therefore, the petitioner, since retired in 2018, his service
should be regularized as against the post of Junior Stenographer
with the quashment of the orders at Annexures-11 and 12.
4. Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State, on the other
hand, referring to the counter affidavit filed through opposite
party Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner's
appointment is illegal, inasmuch as, he was engaged as a Steno-
cum-Typist on 9th June, 1992 illegally sufficiently before the
post created on 25th June, 1993 and that too in respect of a post
with different nomenclature as Junior Stenographer, which was
never meant to accommodate him. Further submission is that in
view of the cut-off date, the petitioner's case could not have
been considered for regularization and that apart, when the very
engagement was found to be illegal and though on a complaint
received, the impugned decision of the Government by a
direction for disengagement followed by Annexure-11 and
consequential order vide Annexure-12 is perfectly justified.
5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Rout, learned counsel
for the opposite party No.4.
6. From the Annexure-1, the Court finds that the petitioner
was given appointment with a decision by the Selection
Committee of the NAC and it was against a post of Steno-cum-
Typist on a temporary basis but thereafter, the post was created
in the year 1993 as made to reveal from Annexure-2. Such
creation of post by the Government was in exercise of the
power conferred under the Municipal Rules. For creation of the
post by order dated 25th June, 1993, it was followed by the
decision of the NAC to accommodate as against it by the
resolutions dated 25th January, 1994 and 23rd September, 1994.
Not only that the Government condoned the overage
appointment of the petitioner and five others in terms of 2 nd
proviso of Rule 408(2) of the Rules by office order dated 4th
November, 1994. It was, thereafter, the petitioner was allowed
to continue as Junior Stenographer with the post re-designated
as revealed from the Service Book as at Annexure-26. All
along, opposite party No.4 justified the selection even though
the complaint was received and necessary correspondence
addressed to the NAC with a detailed reply dated 3rd July, 2012
was made. Nevertheless, the petitioner was directed to be
removed from service and it was ultimately followed by
Annexure-12.
7. The appointment of the petitioner was subsequently
approved against the post of Junior Stenographer created by the
Government by order dated 25th June, 1993 i.e. Annexure-2.
The objection of the State is that the initial appointment is
illegal but it has been justified vide Annexure-8 with the
intimation that such appointment is pursuant to the decision of
Selection Committee held in the year 1992. Admittedly, the
appointment of the petitioner to the post of Steno-cum-Typist is
prior to the cut-off date i.e. 12th April, 1993. Even otherwise,
this Court while considering any such appointment against the
cut-off date concluded in Smt. Santilata Mahakud (supra) that
the recruitment thereafter cannot be held as illegal. In fact, in
the above decision, the ratio decided by a Division Bench of
this Court in Barendra Krishna Nayak and another was
reiterated. The Court is inclined to reproduce the relevant
extract of the above decision which is herein below:
"4.2. The second contention of Mr. Panda that there
was a complete embargo against engagement
otherwise than on regular recruitment w.e.f.
12.04.1993 and therefore, any entry post-ban is
illegal, is difficult to countenance. Reasons for this
are not far to seek; firstly, a ban of the kind cannot be
treated as an impregnable China Wall; secondly, even
after the ban, thousands of employees were engaged,
may be in violation thereof, and the State cannot feign
ignorance of the same. Secondly, in thousands of
cases, this Court and the Apex Court have granted
regularization in worthy matters notwithstanding ban
of the kind; thirdly, no action is taken against the
officials who trampled the ban and made such
engagements. Ban of the kind was only a measure of
economic austerity and not anything beyond. If the
ban were to be mandatory, the State would not have
ignored its violation with impunity; lastly, whatever
arguable 'illegality', would diminish year by year and
should vanish at a long point of time, as has happened
in this case."
8. The Court finds that regularization of service of the
petitioner was recommended with others as made to reveal
from Annexure-21. In fact, vide Annexure-21, the Government
directed the Municipal Commissioner, BMC, Berhampur and
others to furnish information for consideration of the
regularization of 27 left out cases which included the name of
the petitioner under Barpali NAC for being absorbed against
the post of Work Sarkar and in any case pending regularization
of the service of the petitioner even after being appointed vide
Annexure-1, he was allowed to continue by virtue of
regulations of the NAC upon a creation of post by the
Government vide Annexure-2 and overage having been
condoned as per Annexure-5 and considering the fact that he
was allowed to continue and retire from service on 31st January,
2018, such action vide Annexure-12 cannot be justified.
9. Of course, in Smt. Santilata Makakud (supra), the
petitioner was seeking for regularization of service of her
husband which was declared as void while demanding family
pension and considering the same and the embargo with respect
to regular recruitment having been banned with effect from 12th
April, 1993, this Court held that the same is liable to be
interfered with and set aside. In the case at hand, the petitioner
however was allowed to continue even after the order of
removal and superannuated from service in the year 2018.
Considering the above facts and submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties and that the petitioner was allowed to
join in the post created by the Government with the selection
process held since revealed from Annexure-1, his engagement
cannot be held as illegal. Even otherwise, in view of the
decision in Barendra Krishna Nayak (supra), the Court is
inclined to hold that the decision of the Government and order
of removal vide Annexure-12 deserves to be set aside treating
the engagement ever since 9th June, 1992 as legal with a
direction to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to consider
regularization of service on and from the said date and to
ensure that other service retiral benefits are granted to him
within a stipulated period.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-11 with a
direction to opposite party No.4 to disengage and consequential
order of removal dated 19th January, 2013 directed vide
Annexure-12 are hereby set aside with a direction to opposite
party Nos.1 and 2 to treat the service of the petitioner as regular
from date of appointment i.e. 9th June, 1992 and thereafter to
consider release of service and retiral benefits as admissible to
him upon such regularization concluding the exercise at the
earliest preferably within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
