The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7764 of 2022 Anirudha Dash ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Mr. B.S. Tripathy(1), Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
Decision
ORDER 13.08.2025 Order No. 08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization vide order dated 04.03.2022 under Annexure-12. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization as against the post of Driver was rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was initially engaged as a daily wage driver on 44 days basis in a vacancy arising out of the suspension of a regular driver vide order dated 30.08.1997 of the then BDO, Rasulpur under Annexure-1 series w.e.f.01.08.1997. 4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner was so engaged as against a suspension vacancy w.e.f.01.08.1997 vide order dated 30.08.1997, but taking into account his long continuance he moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.573 of 2001 seeking regularization of his Page 1 of 4. services. The Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2001 under Annexure-3 when directed for consideration of his claim, vide order dated 28.08.2020 under Annexure-5 so passed by the BDO, Rasulpur, Petitioner was again engaged as a temporary driver on ad hoc basis for a period of 44 days, instead of regularizing the services of the Petitioner. 4.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner was allowed to continue on ad hoc basis starting from 01.08.1997 and when no step was taken to regularise him after order under Annexure-5, Petitioner once again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 26239 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 13.10.2020 under Annexure-11 when directed for consideration of his claim in the light of the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1 and State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, but without proper appreciation of the said decisions, claim of the Petitioner was again rejected vide the impugned order dated 04.03.2022 under Annexure-12. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner with effect from 01.08.1997 is continuing on ad hoc basis as a driver in the establishment of BDO, Rasulpur (now DRDA, Jajpur), Petitioner because of such long continuance, is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization, not only in the light of the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1 and State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 but also in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 as well as Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, it is also contended that since Petitioner is Page 2 of 4. continuing on ad hoc basis w.e.f.01.08.1997, it is to be presumed that Petitioner is continuing against a vacant post and he is otherwise eligible to get the benefit of regularization. 4.4. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order requires a re- consideration by O.P. No.2. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since the Petitioner is continuing against a suspension vacancy and that too on ad hoc basis, his claim is not covered by the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1 and State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247. Accordingly, while following the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26239 of 2020 Petitioner’s claim was considered and rejected. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. However, it is not disputed that since 01.08.1997 to till date Petitioner is continuing on ad hoc basis. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and taking into account fact that Petitioner is continuing in ad hoc basis with effect from 01.08.1997 till date, it is the view of this Court that claim of the Petitioner requires a consideration in the light of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 as well as Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and the decision already governing the field in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 1806), State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Keshari & Ors. (2010 (9) SCC 247), Nihal Singh & Ors. Vs. Page 3 of 4. State of Punjab & Ors. (2013 (14) SCC 65) and Amarkanta Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2015 (8) SCC 265). 6.1. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 04.03.2022 so passed by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-12. While quashing the said order, this Court directs O.P. No.2 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation following the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision as directed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.2. It is further observed that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of office order dtd.08.02.2017 and 24.03.2017 so available under Annexure-10 series be taken into consideration. Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Jyoti (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 19-Aug-2025 15:16:11 Page 4 of 4.