The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6228 of 2024 Mihir Tripathy ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Aurovinda Mohanty -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. N.K. Praharaj, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 07.05.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Order No. 02. 1. 2. counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, prayed that, let this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased allow this writ petition and issue writ of Mandamus, directing the Opp. Parties-State Authority to regularize the service of the Petitioner in terms of the resolution dated 29.10.2008 as well as the order dated 21.11.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3957 of 2019 as well as the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.1353 of 2020 within a stipulated period from the date completion of six year of service from 30.10.2007. Page 1 of 5. And further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties- State Authority the salary and other consequential benefit from the date of completion six (6) years of service from 30.10.2007. to pay And pass any other order/orders writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.” 4. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the Petitioner on completion of six years’ contractual service in terms of the notification of the Govt. of Odisha in Health and Family Welfare Department dated 30.06.2015. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was initially engaged on 30.10.2007 on contractual basis as a Pharmacist in mobile Health Unit under CHC, Hatabharandi. Thereafter, the Govt. of Odisha in Health and Family Welfare Department came up with notification dated 29.10.2008 which provides for regularization of service of contractual employees who have completed six years’ of uninterrupted contractual service. On 13.05.2013 the Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Odisha passed order for regularization of contractual service of employees who have completed six years’ of uninterrupted contractual service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that earlier the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1810 of 2016 which was disposed of on 29.11.2016 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a representation before the authorities with a further direction to the authorities to consider the same in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation which was rejected vide order dated 25.01.2017. Thereafter, the Petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A No.711 of 2017, while the aforesaid O.A. was pending before the Tribunal, the OAT was abolished and the matter was transferred to this Court and was Page 2 of 5. renumbered as W.P.(C) (OA) No.711 of 2017. Finally the aforesaid O.A. was disposed of. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in a case of similar nature involved in O.A. No.744 of 2017, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. vide order dated 17.05.2018 directing the State to regularize the service of contractual Pharmacist. Such order was challenged by the State-Opposite Parties before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3957 of 2019. The above noted W.P.(C) No.3957 of 2019 was heard along with W.P.(C) No.1353 of 2020 and was disposed of on 21.11.2019 and 03.02.2020 respectively. While disposing the aforesaid O.A. a Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal directing the State to regularize the service of the Petitioner in those original applications. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the State-Opposite parties preferred SLP(C) No.13077 of 2020. The said SLP was disposed of vide order dated 12.01.2021 and the appeal preferred by the State Govt. was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in a recent judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.35563 of 2020 vide judgment dated 26.04.2024, this Court after analyzing the facts of the case involved in the said writ application as well as a batch of similar writ application, has held that Petitioners who were initially appointed as Pharmacist on contractual basis are to be regularized on completion of six years’ service as provided in the rules governing the service conditions of the Petitioner. The issue involved in the present writ application is similar to the issue involved in the above noted writ application which has been finally disposed of by this Court. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that after disposal of the earlier writ application of the Page 3 of 5. Petitioner, the State-Opposite Parties carefully examined the claim of the Petitioner for regularize his service. He further contended that such prayer of the Petitioner has already been rejected by the Opposite Parties vide order dated 25.01.2017 under Annexure-5 to the writ application. Learned Additional Government Advocate further referring to the impugned rejection order under Annexur-5 submitted that the Opposite Parties while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner has specifically stated that the Petitioner does not have the required eligible criteria for consideration of his case for regularization of his service. Further, specifically referring to the order under Annexure-5, he submits before this Court that the Petitioner had acquired his Pharmacy Degree from Jeypore College of Pharmacy which is not approved by the AICTE and the candidates who passed D. Pharma Course from the said Pharmacy college are as such not eligible for appointment. On such grounds, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner under Annexure-5 to the writ application. 8. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was initially engaged in the year 2007 and at that time, there was no such eligibility criteria. Therefore, the Petitioner was duly selected and appointed in the mobile Health Unit and he has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities as of now. The eligibility criteria on which the Opposite Parties have rejected the case of the Petitioner was introduced for the first time in the year 2015. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that such criteria is not applicable to the case of the present Petitioner. 9. Considering such submissions, this Court is of the view that the issue with regard to eligibility has already been taken note of by a Page 4 of 5. Coordinate Bench in an order dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) (OA) No.711 of 2017. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to open the aforesaid issue in the present writ application. However, while disposing the writ application vide order dated 09.01.2024, learned Coordinate Bench has directed that the Opposite Parties shall consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his service subject to availability of the vacancies in the establishment of CDMO, Nabarangpur, if he is otherwise eligible. In such view of the matter, this Court while disposing of the present writ application, remands the matter back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 09.01.2024 as well as by this Court in W.P.(C) No.35563 of 2020 disposed of on 26.04.2024. Let aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. In view of the aforesaid observation, the impugned order of rejection under Annexure-5 is hereby set aside. The Opposite Parties are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the aforesaid direction and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final order so passed to communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. S.K. Rout ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-May-2024 16:37:24 Page 5 of 5.