The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6165 of 2022 Sangram Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr. S. Jena, Advocate for NAC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 04.09.2025 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- from “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the. writ petition, issue Rule NISI, calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the service of the petitioner the date of shall not be regularised engagement as Tax Collector and why the impugned order dtd. 24.12.2021 under Annexure-8 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 shall not be quashed and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said Rule be absolute and the Hon’ble Court may direct the Opposite Parties to regularise the service of the petitioner as Tax Collector from the date of joining with all consequential service benefits and further quash the impugned order dtd.24.12.2021 under Annexure-8 passed by the Opposite Party No.1. And pass such other order/orders as would be deem fit and proper.” // 2 // 4. It is contended that petitioner was engaged as a DLR Tax Collector in the establishment of Udala Notified Area Council w.e.f. 17.05.1997. It is further contended that in terms of the letter issued by the Govt. in the Housing and Urban Development Department on 15.12.2000, the cut-off date for such engagement of DLR in Urban Local Bodies was fixed as 19.05.1997. 4.1. Since the petitioner was engaged as a DLR w.e.f. 17.05.1997, the same is admittedly prior to the cut-off date fixed by the Govt. in its letter dated 15.12.2000 under Annexure-2. It is also contended that even though petitioner was allowed to continue on DLR basis w.e.f. 17.05.1997, but when he was not regularized on the face of the letter issued by the Department on 15.12.2000, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8698 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 09.03.2021, when directed O.P. No.1 to consider petitioner’s grievance, same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 under Annexure-8 inter alia on the ground of petitioner being engaged as a DLR after 12.04.1993, he is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit. 4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar issue was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10517 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.20451 of 2022 and batch. Vide order dated 04.03.2024 and 30.07.2025, while dealing with similar issue, this Court directed the concerned Urban Local Bodies to regularize the services of the petitioner therein with a further direction on the Govt. to sanction the post if so required. View expressed by this Court in Page 2 of 5 // 3 // W.P.(C) No.10517 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.20451 of 2022 and batch in Para-6 & 6.1, 7 respectively reads as follows:- “6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed on Ad hoc basis w.e.f. 14.07.1995 vide order dtd.31.07.1995 under Annexure-1. Even though the Tribunal vide its order dtd.24.06.2013 while disposing O.A. No.12(C) of 1997 allowed the Petitioner to continue and with a direction that Petitioner will so continue till the post is filled up on regular basis and by giving opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the selection process, but as admitted, no step has been taken as yet by the State- Machinery to fill up the post on regular basis. 6.1. In view of such long continuance on Ad hoc basis for around 30 years and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court as cited (supra) and the inaction of the Opposite Parties in not filing up the post on regular basis, this Court is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner has been illegally rejected impugned order dtd.18.04.2022 under vide the Annexure-5. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the said order. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take appropriate step for regularization of services of the Petitioner as against the post in which Petitioner is continuing w.e.f.14.07.1995 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that all the Petitioners were engaged on daily wages basis w.e.f. 01.09.1994, 21.06.1995, 21.02.1997, 21.02.1998 & 01.07.1997. Though, it is not disputed that all the Petitioners were engaged after 12.04.1993 i.e. cutoff date fixed by the its Resolution in Finance Department dtd.15.05.1997, but in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vrs. Union of India & Others and Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and of this Court in WPC (OAC) Nos.1568 of 2018 & batch, it is the view of this Court that even though the Petitioners were engaged after the Page 3 of 5 // 4 // the cut-off date, but in view of their long continuance for more than 28 years in each of the cases, the ground on which claim of the Petitioners has been rejected, as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable. It is also the view of this Court that in view of such long continuance, it is to be held that they are continuing against sanctioned vacant posts.” 4.3. It is also contended that order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10517 of 2022 has been upheld by this Court in Writ Appeal No.2793 of 2024. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which claim of the petitioner has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, contended that since petitioner was engaged after 12.04.1993, which is cut off date fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dated 15.05.1997, petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected as any such engagement after 12.04.1993 is not permissible. It is also contended that petitioner since has been engaged against a non-sanctioned post, he is not eligible to get the benefit of regularization. 6. Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.3- NAC on the other hand does not dispute the continuance of the petitioner w.e.f. 17.05.1997 as a DLR Tax Collector and also contended that petitioner’s claim has been recommended vide letter dated 04.12.2021 under Annexure-7. It is also contended that petitioner since 17.05.1997 is continuing as a DLR as on date as against a sanctioned post. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and placing reliance on Page 4 of 5 // 5 // the decisions as cited (supra) and the fact that petitioner since is continuing as a DLR w.e.f. 17.05.1997, this Court is of the view that the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court while quashing the said order, dispose of the Writ Petition in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.20451 of 2022. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Sep-2025 14:41:05 Page 5 of 5