Ramesh Ku.Panda v. State And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No. 3431OF 2014 Ramesh Kumar Panda .........
Petitioner Mr. S.K.Singh, Adv.
-versusState of Orissa & another .........
Opposite Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, ASC Mr. S.Pattnaik, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
24.08.2022 Order No.
04.
1.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing counsel for the State. There is no appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3.
3.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was working as a Peon for more than ten years against a class-IV vacancy of Odissi Research Centre, his case was for regularization of service is not being considered on extraneous grounds for which he has approached this Court.
4.
During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the proceeding of the Executive Body meeting of Guru Kelu Charana Mohapatra Odissi Research Centre (O.P.No.3) dated 28.09.2012. It is seen that the said Executive Body meeting was chaired by the Principal Secretary to Government of
Odisha Tourism and Culture (Culture) Department, Director Culture and the Special Secretary to Government, Finance Department attended the meeting as Member and invitees respectively. Agenda No.13 has a bearing on the point of issue and which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quoted hereunder:- 5.
On a bare perusal of the aforesaid deliberation which has been The following employees of It was decided that a GKCM Odissi Research committee will be formed Centre are working on DLR under the Chairmanship of and consolidated basis are Director Culture, with AFA submitting representation for Culture and Chief regular appointment in the Executive, ORC as Centre:
members to examine for 1.Sri Kanduri Charan Behera submitting a report.
2.Smt. Leena Nanda 3.Sri Narasingh Sahoo 4.Miss Binapani Nayak 5.Ramesh Kumar Panda annexed to the Misc. Case No. 13678 of 2016 it is not that a decision was taken that a committee will be formed under the Chairmanship of Director Culture to examine for submitting a report regarding representation of DLR similarly circumstance with the petitioner for regular appointment in the Centre. The name of the petitioner appears against Serial No.5.
6.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of such a policy decision having been taken, the issue of regular
appointment has still not attained finality and the petitioner is continuing on daily wages basis, since no committee has been formed as per the decision of the Executive Committee adverted to above. 7.
Taking into account the decision as aforesaid in the high-level meeting, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.3 and the State Authority shall do well to form a committee and take a decision in terms of the proceeding of the Executive Committee referred to hereinabove. To facilitate such decision, the petitioner undertakes to submit a fresh representation along with copy of this order within a period of four weeks from today and the authority shall do well to consider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically and dispose of the same keeping in view that the petitioner is continuing since 1999 and communicate the decision taken within a period four months from the date of receipt of such representation. 8.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 9.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V.Narasingh) Judge Dhal