[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Meenati Malla vs Union Of India & Others .... Opp. Parties on 23 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23884 of 2025
Meenati Malla .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
Union of India & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. A.K. Saa, CGC
W.P.(C) No.23898 of 2025
Neehar Prasad Mallick .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. A.K. Roy, S.P.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 23.04.2026
05.
Petitioners, being the part-timers, are knocking at the doors of
Writ Court for assailing the common order dated 09.07.2025,
whereby their O.As. No.511 of 2018 and No.581 of 2018 have been
negatived. In the said OAs, they had made the following principal
prayers:
"(i) To quash the order of rejection/speaking order
dtd. 16.08,2018 under Annexure-A/14 passed by Respondent
No.3;
(ii) To regularize the applicant by considering her 14
years of service as Casual Stenographer from her initial
engagement on the basis of order passed on 12.03.2018 in a
batch case along with T.A. No.04/2013 by this Hon'ble
Tribunal;"
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that in the earlier
round of litigation, i.e., OA No.399 of 2017 disposed off on
24.11,2017, a direction was issued to the OPs to consider the
representation dated 25.05.2017, wherein inter alia they had sought
for their enlistment in the place out of the scheme; there was a
direction to consider the same for placement, as sought for.
Thereafter, Petitioners' representation for regularization of their
services came to be negatived by the OPs, as a consequence of
which, these OAs had been filed. He also submits that regardless of
denial of relief of regularization, Petitioners cannot be worse off qua
the order made by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation.
3. Learned DSGI-Mr. Parhi appearing for the OPs resists the
petitions making submission in justification of the impugned order
and the reasons on which it has been structured.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited
indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. It is not in dispute that in O.A No.238 of 2011 disposed off
on 04.04.2013, the Tribunal had observed as under:
"3. From the record we find that working of the
applicants on casual basis for some time is not in dispute.
Therefore, Mr. S. Barik, Learned Additional CGSC
appearing for the Respondents fairly submitted that the name
of the applicants ought to have been placed in the list of third
category which has not inadvertently been done.
4. In view of the above, the Respondents are hereby
directed to insert the name of the applicants at the suitable
place(s) in the third category list prepared and published at
Annexure-5 series and issue the revised list within a period of
sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this OA."(sic)
The above order attained finality, there being no challenge to the
same before any forum. That order had given the Petitioners the
relief, namely, enlistment of their names in the suitable places in the
third category of the subject list prepared and published. Therefore,
the impugned order now passed by the Tribunal cannot be fully
justified. In other words, though the relief of regularization is denied
justifiably, the order could not have been structured in a way as to
dilute the relief granted to the Petitioners in the earlier order dated
04.04.2013. To that extent, there is a lacuna warranting rectification
at the hands of this Court.
All the above being said, counsel for the Petitioners agree
that they would also make an appropriate representation for their
engagement on immediate basis excluding the mediary, namely, the
Raz Menpower And Consultant that would entitle the Petitioners to
the higher amount of remuneration by excluding the commission
which the mediary would have charged. If such an application is
made, the jurisdictional OPs have to take a call thereon, keeping in
view the extant policy concerning the matter.
In the above circumstances and with the above observations,
the petition is disposed off. Time for making the representation is
four weeks and for consideration is eight weeks from the date the
same is made. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Madhusmita
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
