Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.2157 of 2020 and batch of Writ Petitions (In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). (In W.P.(C) No.2157 of 2020) Krodapati Saraf …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha &Ors. …. Opp. Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) For Opp. Party(s) CORAM: : : Mr. Saroj Kumar Padhy, Adv. Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mishra, Adv. -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Pravakar Behera, Adv. DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATES OF HEARING:-23.09.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.12.2024 W.P.(C) Nos.2157, 2159, 2160, 2162, 2234, 2237, 2241, 2245, 2246 and 26231 of 2020 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the above- mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 apposite to deal with the W.P.(C) No.2157 of 2020 as the leading case for proper adjudication of all these cases. 2. The Petitioner, in W.P.(C) No. 2157 of 2020, is challenging the Order No. 658/TC, dated 14.01.2020, issued by the office of the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack, disengaging the contractual drivers engaged in its subordinate I. 3. (i) offices. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was engaged as a driver on a contractual basis in the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Sambalpur, from 01.07.2009 to 27.09.2009. This engagement was extended periodically, and the petitioner completed six years of service on 01.07.2015. (ii) Resolution No. 26108/Gen, dated 17.09.2013, was issued by the General Administration Department to address the regular appointment of existing contractual Group C and Group D employees. Subsequently, the General Administration Department issued Resolution No. 16.01.2014, clarifying that no contractual employee would be eligible for regular appointment under the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 unless certain mandatory eligibility conditions were fulfilled. The fulfilment of such conditions was to be examined by a High Power Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the relevant department.These conditions include: “i. Contractual appointments/engagements must have been made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 regular posts or contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services. ii. Such contractual appointments/engagements must have been made following the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding regular posts, and iii. Principle of reservation of posts must have been followed in case of such contractual appointments/ engagements.” (iii) In accordance with the General Administration Department Resolutions dated 17.09.2013, four drivers similarly situated to the petitioner were regularized through Office Order No. 11547/TC, dated 31.08.2015. Additionally, the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman recommended the regularization of ten drivers, including the petitioner, through letters dated 06.08.2016 and 31.10.2016. (iv) However, the recommendation made by the Transport Commissioner- cum-Chairman for the regularization of the petitioner’s case/ as well as those of other contractual drivers already regularized, was subsequently placed before the High Power Committee. The Committee decided to revoke the regularization and rejected the recommendation, as it did not comply with the provisions and requirements set by the General Administration Department resolution dated 17.09.2013. (v) Subsequently, the petitioner was disengaged from service pursuant to Office Order No. 658/TC, dated 14.01.2020, in accordance with the High Power Committee’s decision. This order terminated the services of contractual drivers, including the petitioner, due to a surplus of idle Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 drivers, with no vehicles available for deployment. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. II. PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS: 4. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Order No. 658/TC, dated 14.01.2020 issued by the Office of the Transport Commissioner-Cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha directing the disengagement of contractual drivers, is arbitrary. Having served as a contractual driver for over a decade, the petitioner has acquired a legitimate expectation of regularization. (ii) The petitioner submitted that his continuous service as a contractual driver against a vacant post, along with the subsequent extensions of his engagement, entitles him to regularization. According to the General Administration Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013, contractual employees who complete six years of satisfactory service are deemed eligible for regular appointment. The petitioner, having completed six years of service on 01.07.2015, meets this criterion. (iii) The petitioner has submitted that, based on precedents, including the position of law decided in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1 and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Keshari,2 the service of the petitioner on contractual basis against a vacant post should be regularized. (iv) The petitioner further submitted that four similarly situated contractual drivers were already regularized vide Office Order No. 11547, dated