Sabitri Pradhan v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.11680 of 20202 Sabitri Pradhan ....

Petitioner Mr.Jajati Keshari Khuntia, Advocate -versusState of Odisha and others ....

Opposite Parties Mr.K.K. Nayak, ASC for State

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

ORDER

13.05.2022 01.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement Order No.

(Virtual/Physical Mode).

2.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

3.

The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service taking into account his continuous service, as expeditiously as possible. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been continuing as Chowkidar-cum-Watchman (Class-IV) on DLR basis under the opposite parties, but till date he has not been regularized, although more than 27 years have passed in the meantime. He has referred to the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1, wherein in Paragraph-53, the apex Court has held that the State Government and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure the services of such irregularly appointed who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Keshari and others reported in 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982, wherein in Paragraph-7 the apex Court has held as follows :-

// 2 // "7.

It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciate din Umadevi if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."

5.

In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing as DLR basis and completed 27 years of service in the meantime, as contended by him, and even though his appointment is irregular, this writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite parties to examine the same and take a decision on the regularization of the petitioner keeping in view the judgment of the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L. Keshari (supra) as well as Amarkanti Rai vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265, within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. 6.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge U.K.Sahoo