The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7830 of 2022 Pratima Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. R.K. Bisoi, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 31.07.2025 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 07.03.2022 so passed by Govt.- O.P. No.1 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to treat the deceased employee as a regular employee and extend the benefit of Pension as well as Family Pension was rejected. 4.
Legal Reasoning
““44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be illegal cases where appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” further ensure Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 4.4. A further submission was also made that persons similarly situated in terms of Annexure-E/4, were not only regularized but also extended with the benefit of Pension as well as Pensionary benefits. But because of the illegal action of the Opp. Parties is not taking a final decision for a pretty long period, the deceased employee was not only deprived of the benefit of regularization, but also the benefit of Pension and Pensionary benefits. It is accordingly contended that rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since by the time Annexure-E/4 was issued, accepting the proposal submitted under Annexure-B/4, the employee concerned had already died on 13.10.2011, late husband of the petitioner cannot be taken as a regular employee, as he was never regularized prior to his death. 5.1. It is however not disputed that in the letter under Annexure-E/4, name of the deceased employee was reflected at Sl. No.3 and other employees got the benefit of regularization in terms of Annexure-E/4. 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner made further submission inter alia contending that if by treating the deceased employee as a regular employee, Page 4 of 6 // 5 // petitioner only will be sanctioned with Family Pension as due and admissible, petitioner will not raise any claim with regard to the entitlement as was due to the deceased employee. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner’s late husband was appointed in the work charged establishment where he joined on 15.03.1984 in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1. On the face of such continuance in the work charged establishment w.e.f. 15.03.1984, the deceased employee was never regularized in terms of the resolution issued by the Finance Department on 15.05.1997 under Annexure-2 and the decision in the case of Uma Devi as cited (supra). 7.1. Even though while submitting the proposal under Annexure-B/4, Government was requested to absorb the petitioner and similarly situated work charged employees to the wages establishment but the same was never acted upon by the Govt. for a pretty long period and it was only accepted with issuance of the permission vide letter dated 09.10.2013 under Annexure-E/4. Since for the delay in accepting the proposal for around 3 years, the employee concerned died on 13.10.2011, it is the view of this Court that deceased employee is required to be treated as a regular employee in terms of the decision communicated under Annexure-E/4. Therefore, this Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Court while disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 under Annexure-11, directs O.P. No.2 to treat the deceased employee as a regular employee in terms of Annexure- E/4, from the date similar order of regularization was issued in favour of other employees whose names find place in the said letter. 7.2. After treating the deceased employee as a regular employee as directed, petitioner be released with Family Pension as due and admissible from the date of issuance of such order of regularization in favour of the deceased employee. Taking into account the undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is observed that petitioner will not be entitled nor she will claim any benefit as due to her late husband. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to pass an appropriate order as directed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order and release the Family Pension along with arrears in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid time period. 8.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide order under Annexure-1, late husband of the petitioner was appointed in the work charged establishment as a Khalasi and he joined accordingly. It is contended that the deceased employee though continued in the work charge establishment w.e.f. // 2 // 15.03.1984, but no step was taken to absorb him in the regular establishment in terms of the Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997 under Annexure-2 and the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC-1. 4.1. It is contended that while so continuing, basing on the request made by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide his letter dated 10.02.2010 under Annexure-B/4 to bring over the work charged employees to the wages establishment. Petitioner’s claim was also recommended along with others, with due acceptance of the proposal by the Government vide its letter dated 09.10.2013 under Annexure-E/4. 4.2. It is however contended that since by the time Annexure-E/4 was issued, the deceased employee had already died on 13.10.2011 as reflected from Annexure- 6, late husband of the petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of regularization. It is contended that in letter under Annexure-E/4, name of the deceased employee was reflected at Sl. No.3. 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since proposal submitted on 10.02.2010 under Annexure-B/4 was not acted upon and by the time the same was acted upon vide letter dated 09.10.2013 under Annexure-E/4, the employee concerned had died on 13.10.2011, for the alleged latches on the part of the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // department, petitioner could not have denied the benefit as prayed for. It is contended that on the face of the decision taken in Resolution dated 15.05.1997, claim of the deceased employee was never considered by absorbing him in the regular establishment nor he was absorbed in terms of the decision in the case of Uma Devi as cited (supra). Hon’ble Apex Court in Para- 44 of the decision in the case of Uma Devi has held as follows:- (not irregular appointments
Decision
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Aug-2025 18:53:48 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 6 of 6