The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5284 of 2022 Jyotirmayee Mahapatra and Others …. Petitioners Mr. B.S. Panigrahi, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr. A. Pal, Advocate for O.P. No.3 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 07.04.2025 14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement Order No (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. B.S. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the University- O.P. No.3. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 20.12.2021 so passed by the University under Annexure-6. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioners to get similar benefit as has been extended in favour of one Jyotirmayee Devi, who was appointed as a contractual employee as like the petitioners in the department of Zoology in the College of Basic Science and Humanities, OUAT was rejected. // 2 // 4. It is contended that the present petitioners along with one Jyotirmayee Devi were appointed as Part-time Laboratory Assistant (Self Finance) in different departments of OUAT vide order dated 26.10.2015 and 01.12.2015 under Annexure-1 series. However, when Jyotirmayee Devi, Laboratory Assistant in the department of Zoology was regularized as a Full Time Contractual Employee vide office order dated 18.08.2018 under Annexure-2, petitioners claiming similar benefit moved the University and thereafter this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7870 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 04.10.2021 under Annexure-5, directed the University to take a decision on the petitioners’ claim. 4.1. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the benefit extended in favour of Jyotirmayee Devi vide office order dated 18.08.2018 under Annexure-2, claim of the petitioners was rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 under Annexure-6. 4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since all the 4 (four) petitioners along with Jyotirmayee Devi were engaged as Part-time Laboratory Assistant (Self Finance) on contractual basis and during such continuance of all of them with due extension, Jyotirmayee Devi was regularized as a Full Time Contractual employee vide order dated 18.08.2018 under Annexure-2, rejection of the petitioners’ claim on the ground indicated in Annexure-6 is not sustainable in the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand contended that all the 4 (four) petitioners along with Jyotirmayee Devi though were appointed as Part-time Laboratory Assistant (Self Finance) on contractual basis in different departments of the OUAT vide orders issued under Annexure-1 series, but while considering the claim of Jyotirmayee Devi, since Govt. accorded necessary permission to OUAT to regularize her as a Full Time Contractual Employee vide letter dated 30.07.2018 under Annexure-D/1 to the counter affidavit filed by O.P No.1, the said Jyotirmayee Devi was extended with the benefit vide office order dated 18.08.2018 under Annexure-2. 5.1. However since similar relaxation was never extended in favour of the present petitioners by O.P. No.1, claim of the petitioners in terms of the earlier order of this Court was considered and rejected. It is accordingly contended that unless and until Govt. gives necessary clearance for extension of the benefit as has been extended in favour of Jyotirmayee Devi vide letter dated 30.07.2018 under Annexure-D/1 to the counter affidavit, similar benefit cannot be extended in favour of the petitioners and accordingly their claim was rejected vide order dated 20.12.2021. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by O.P. No.1, contended that while continuing as a Contractual Employee, when the aforesaid Jyotirmayee Devi made a representation to the Govt. and the same was forwarded by the University vide letter dated 25.01.2018 under Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit, on due consideration and after taking necessary clearance from the Finance Department, permission was accorded to the University to regularize her service vide letter dated 30.07.2018 under Annexure-D/1. 6.1. It is accordingly contended that since claim of the Jyotirmayee Devi was forwarded by the University seeking clarification and on due consideration of the same, Govt. accorded the permission to regularize the services of Jyotirmayee Devi, in absence of any such clarification being sought for by the University, Govt. has no occasion to give the permission as has been extended in favour of Jyotirmayee Devi. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioners along with one Jyotirmayee Devi were engaged as Part-time Laboratory Assistant (Self-finance) on contractual basis in different departments of the University vide orders issued under Annexure-1 series. As found from the record, the aforesaid Jyotirmayee Devi when was regularized as a Full Time Contractual Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Employee vide order dated 18.08.2018 under Annexure-2, petitioners claiming similar benefit moved the University and thereafter to this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7872 of 2020. 7.1. This Court when directed the University to take a decision on the petitioners’ claim vide order dated 04.10.2021 under Annexure-5, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2021 under Annexure-6 on the ground that Jyotirmayee Devi since was regularised as a full time contractual employee basing on the permission accorded by the State Govt. vide letter dated 30.07.2018 and no such permission has been given in the case of the petitioners, they are not eligible to get similar benefit. 7.2. This Court after going through the documents available on record, finds that Govt.-O.P. No.1 in consideration of the clarification sought for by the University with regard to the claim of aforesaid Jyotirmayee Devi to get the benefit of regularization vide Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit, issued the clarification vide letter dated 30.07.2018 under Annexure- D/1, permitting the University to regularize the services of Jyotirmayee Devi as a Full Time Contractual Employee. In terms of the such permission granted by the Govt., benefit of regularization was extended by the University in favour of Jyotirmayee Devi vide order dated 18.08.2018 under Annexure-2. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7.3. Since this Court finds that all the petitioners stand in similar footing as like Jyotirmayee Devi, while disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 under Annexure-6, this Court directs the University to move the Govt. for creation of the post in question for the purpose of extension of the benefit of regularization in favour of the petitioners. This Court accordingly directs O.P. No.3 to move the Govt. for creation of required number of 4 (four) posts for the purpose of regularization of the services of the petitioners within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. O.P. No.1 on receipt of the same, shall consider the same and extend similar benefit as has been extended in favour of Jyotirmayee Devi vide letter dated 30.07.2018 under Annexure-D/1, within a period of 6 (six) weeks thereafter. On receipt of such clarification from the Govt., appropriate order of regularization be passed by the University without any further delay. 8.
Decision
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Apr-2025 17:52:48 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 6 of 6