State of Odisha and others v. Ayodhyanath Barik)f as the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6863 of 2025 1) Budhadev Rout 2) Sankarsan Panda ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Kunal Kumar Swain -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director Of Health Services 3) Director Of Ayush, Department Of Health And Family Welfare 4) District Ayurveda Medical Officer, Central Circle, Keonjhar 5) The Inspector Of Ayurveda, Central Circle, Keonjhar ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. M.R. Mohanty, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 12.03.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha in Health and Family Welfare Department, Page 1 of 6. the Additional Secretary the Additional Secretary Bhubaneswar under Annexure:6 and necessary direction may be made to the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioners and similar benefit may be granted to them which has been made available to Sri Laxmidhar Sahoo, Attendant working in the Homeopathy Dispensary of this Hon’ble Court by virtue of order dated to 21.09.2023 passed by Government of Odisha in Health and Family Welfare Department, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-4 pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.4884 of 2020 (Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs, State of Odisha and others) and also as per the order dated to 04.10.2024 passed by Government of Odisha in Health and Family Welfare Department,Bhubaneswar under Annexure;? regularizing the services of Sri Ayodhyanath Barik, PTS-cum-Night Watchman, Government Homeopathy Dispensary, Tangarpada in the district of Keonjhar in the post of Attendant pursuant to the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) Diary No.5399 of 2024 (State of Odisha and others Vs. Ayodhyanath Barik)f as the petitioners are similarly situated like that of Sri Laxmidhar Sahoo and Sri Ayodhyanath Barik, with all consequential service and financial benefits, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; (B) And any other order / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 after participating in a due selection process was selected and was appointed as P.T.S.-cum-Night Watcher vide order dated 08.08.1990 by the Inspector of Ayurveda, Central Circle, Keonjhar, accordingly the petitioner No.1 joined in the very same day. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 was also duly selected and was appointed as P.T.S.-cum-Night Watcher, w.e.f. 22.11.1986 by the Ayurveda Medical Officer Govt. Ayurveda dispensary, Girigaon in the district of Keonjhar. Page 2 of 6. Accordingly the petitioner No.2 joined in service w.e.f. the said date. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that there is no dispute that both the petitioners were engaged prior to the cut off i.e. 12.04.1993. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed after having been duly selected and have served for more than ten years. In the aforesaid context the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka –v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, and contended that the Opposite parties, by following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, should have considered the case of the petitioners and their services should have been regularised. Since no steps were taken for regularisation of their service, both the petitioners approached this Court by filing the W.P.(C) No.11259 of 2024. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 while disposing of the writ application directed the Opposite party No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that after disposal of the previous writ application, although the petitioners approached the Opposite party No.1, however the prayer of the petitioners for regularisation of their service has again been rejected by the Opposite party No.1 by virtue of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 under Annexure-6. 5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioners Page 3 of 6. further contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826, in Sripal and Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024 as well as Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024 and State of Karnataka-v.-M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 47, the case of the petitioners should have been considered for regularisation of his service keeping in view the fact that they have been serving for several years and that their initial entry into service was by following the valid selection process. 6. He further contended that in the case of the similarly situated employee namely Ayodhyanath Barik, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition. This Court had directed the Opposite parties to regularise his service. However, the State-Opposite Parties preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) Diary No.5399 of 2024, the appeal of the State Govt. was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2024. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties have regularised the service of the abovenamed Ayodhyanath Barik vide order No.26064/H dated 04.10.2024. Referring to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while regularising the service of the abovenamed employee, Opposite parties have rejected the case of the petitioner which amounts to discrimination and as such same is in contravention of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended Page 4 of 6. that after disposal of the earlier writ application the case of the petitioner was duly considered and the same has been rejected by passing a speaking and reasoned order dated 30.07.2024 under Anenxure-6 to the writ application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the case of the petitioner is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the writ application, and on further analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the both sides and keeping in view the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayodhyanath Barik, who is stated to be on the same footing as the present petitioner, this Court deems it proper to direct the Opposite Parties to reconsider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed in Ayodhyanath Barik’s case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 under Annexure-6 is hereby quashed, further the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 with a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioner by taking into consideration the fact that similarly situated persons, Ayodhyanath Barik, has been regularised in view of the order passed by this Court earlier, which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the case of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of Page 5 of 6. communication of a certified copy of today’s order by the petitioner. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Mar-2025 10:56:10