The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6808 of 2025 Chandrakanta Majhi ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Krishna Chandra Sahu -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director Of Health Services 3) Director, Public Health, Bbsr 4) Cdm And Pho, Khurda ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samaresh Jena, A.S.C.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 11.03.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to allow this Writ Petition by directing the Opp. parties for antedated regularization of service of the petitioner from the date of completion of six years of contractual service by extending the consequential service & financial benefits as has been granted in respect of similar situated MPHW(M) by implementing the order of learned OAT under Annexure-2 as well as order of this Hon’ble Court under Annexure-4 keeping in view of the order of Hon’ble Division Bench being confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per Annexure- 5 & 6 within a time bound period for the interest of justice.” Page 1 of 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as MPHW (M) on 08.12.2005 on contractual basis. Thereafter, while serving as such and on completion of more than seven years of contractual service, the services of the petitioner was regularised w.e.f. 18.09.2013, and after such regularisation the petitioner is now continuing in the re- designated of the post of MPHW(M), Level-II at Padhansahi Sub- Centre under CHC, Jatni in the district of Khurda. 5. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner being aggrieved by delayed regularisation of service approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1471 of 2019 with a specific prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to regularise his service from the date of completion of six years of contractual service. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 17.04.2019 disposed of the said O.A. allowing the prayer of the petitioner with a direction to the Opposite parties to take steps for antedating the regularisation of service of the petitioner i.e. from the date when the petitioner completed of six years of contractual service. After disposal of the aforesaid O.A., the Opposite Party No.3 vide letter dated 21.05.2019 communicated to the Opposite Party No.4 for implementation of the order of the Tribunal. While the matter stood thus, earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filling W.P.(C) No.34908 of 2021, with a prayer for implementation of the order passed by the learned O.A.T. A coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2021 was pleased to dispose of the abovenoted writ application by directing the Opposite Parties to comply with order dated 17.04.2019 passed in O.A. No.1471 of 2019 within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture contended that although more than five years have elapsed in the meantime the Page 2 of 4. order passed by the Tribunal has not been implemented by the Opposite Parties. 6. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in an identical matter that is in the case of Mahendra Nath Karan, a division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4253 of 2021 vide order dated 09.03.2021, while uploading the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned O.A.T in O.A. No.1852 of 2018, directed for antedating of the date of regularisation of the petitioner in that case had dismissed of the writ petition by uploading the order of the tribunal in the direction given in the said case. The State Opposite Parties preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court bearing Special Leave Appeal (C) No. 14680 of 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.01.2024 has been pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no legal impediment in giving effect to the order passed by the learned Tribunal so far the present petitioner is concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that while disposing of the SLP the Hon’ble Supreme Court has kept upon the question of law for consideration. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the order passed in the case of the Mahendra Nath Karan has not attained finality and the issue involved therein is open for adjudication. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the state submitted that the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 8. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case it appears that the order passed by the tribunal in the case of the present petitioner that is O.A. No.1471 of 2019 on 17.04.2019 has Page 3 of 4. attained finality as it does not appear that the State-Opposite parties have challenged the same further. Moreover, issues involved in the present case which was directly involved in the case of Mahendra Nath Karan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already upheld the order passed by the Division Bench thereby confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Further, it appears that the State-Opposite Parties have already given effect to the order passed by the Tribunal in some of the cases by antedating the date of regularisation i.e. the services of MPHW(M) have been regularised on completion of six years of contractual service. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present case. Accordingly the present writ application is being disposed of by directing the Opposite Parties to implement the order dated 17.04.2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order by the petitioner. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Mar-2025 14:54:28 Page 4 of 4.