The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.8345 of 2025 1) Ms. Nipa Raji Minz 2) Jyoti Rupa Yadav ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Swapna Kumar Ojha State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.C. Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 25.03.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued directing the Opposite Parties to extend the benefit of order/Judgment under Annexure-1 & 2 further directing the Opp.Parties to regularise the services of the Petitioners as Lady Community Organizer with effect from the date(s) they have completed six years of service as per the policy decision of the Government under Annexure- 7 & 8 as has been done by the Panchayatiraj Department and Electronics and Information Technology Department and pay them all their service and financial Page 1 of 4. benefits as a regular employee retrospectively; If the Opp.Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause rule may be made absolute. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were initially appointed pursuant to an advertisement dated 18.04.2010 under Annexure-3 on contractual basis. Accordingly, the appointment letters were issued on 14.07.2010 under Annexure-5 to the writ application. He further contended that since the date of their re-engagement they have been working sincerely without any disruption in their service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although the petitioners have approached the Opposite Parties for regularisation of their service by filing a representation on 13.02.2025 under Annexure-11 to the writ application. However, no decision has been taken on such representation by the opposite parties. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the opposite parties, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ application. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment of this Court in Krushna Chandra Bhoi vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.26542 of 2022 decided on 07.01.2025 and the judgments of a co-ordinate bench in Jayakrushna Jena and others vs. Sate of Odisha and others in W.P.C(OAC) No.4672 of 2016 decided on 28.02.2025. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka –v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 3826, in Sripal and Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal Page 2 of 4. No.8158-8179 of 2024 and State of Karnataka-v.-M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 47. He further contended that taking into consideration the period of service the petitioners have rendered over the years, the opposite parties should have considered the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. He further contended that although the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis, however the nature of duties they were performing was perennial in nature. It was also contended that the petitioners were selected by following a due selection procedure after the posts were duly advertised. Further, referring to office order No.20954/ Housing & Urban Development Department order dated 30.07.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that several posts of community organiser are lying vacant as indicated at serial No.53 of the said order. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no instruction in the matter. However, on perusal of the writ application it appears that the present writ application has been filed with a prayer for regularisation of service of the petitioners. He further contended that on perusal of the writ application it appears that the petitioners have already approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing representation dated 13.02.2025 under Annexure-11 to the writ application. In the event the representation under Annexure-11 is still pending, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite party No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioners under Annexure-11, keeping in view the judgments referred to hereinabove within a stipulated period of time. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further Page 3 of 4. keeping in view the factual background of the present case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation by disposing of the representation of the petitioners under Annexure-11 in terms of the judgments referred to hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The rrepresentation of the petitioners is to be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order by referring to the judgments indicated hereinabove. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioners within ten days thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 4 of 4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Apr-2025 12:57:48