The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10372 of 2022 Machhua Ho & Others …. Petitioners Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 24. 1. This matter ORDER 27.06.2024 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Copy of the counter affidavit filed by the State before the Tribunal in O.A. No.404(C) of 2015 so produced by
Legal Reasoning
the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Court be kept in record. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 4. Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the Office Order dtd.26.07.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-11 so far as it relates to extension of the benefit for certain period on notional basis. Vide the said order, the services of the Petitioners though were regularized from the date of completion of six years of contractual service, but the // 2 // financial benefit was only extended from the date of approval of their services in terms of the decision taken by the Cabinet i.e. 23.03.2021. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that all the Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis vide different orders issued in the year, 2008. In terms of the decision taken by the Government in G.A Department on 17.09.2013 when the services of the Petitioners were not regularized on completion of six years of continuous service, Petitioners approached the Tribunal in O.A No.404 (C) of 2015. 4.2. It is contended that before the Tribunal, a counter affidavit was filed by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 inter alia taking the following ground in Para-6. “6. That, the averments in Para No.6 (I), it is a fact that as per G.A Department Resolution dated, 17.09.2013, the service of the contractual employee on completion of six years’ service to be regularized. But the applicants have not completed six years’ service”. 4.3. It is contended that taking into account the stand taken in Para-6 of the counter, the Tribunal disposed of the matter vide order dtd. 10.03.2017 under Annexure-5 inter alia with the following direction:- “In para-6 of the counter it is mentioned that it is a fact that as per GA Deptt. Notification dtd.17.9.13 the service of the contractual employees on completion of six years’ service to be regularized, but the applicants have not completed six years of service. This counter was filed on 28.8.2015, by then they had not completed six years of service, but as on Page 2 of 7 // 3 // today they have completed six years of service since 12.1.2016. In view of the admission in the counter, the respondents are directed to release the enhanced arrear consolidated pay at the rate of Rs.5200/- P.M. from the date of joining of the applicants till their regularization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the arrear dues shall be paid with 7% interest thereon. So far as regularization is concerned, the respondents are directed to take a decision in terms of GA Department Notification dtd.17.9.2013 to regularize the service of the applicants after completion of six years of their contractual appointment”. 4.4. It is further contended that challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on 10.03.2017, State approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.14761 of 2018. But this Court vide order dtd.24.01.2019 dismissed the Writ Petition while confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter when the order was not complied, Petitioners again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.13708 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.17.07.2020 under
Decision
Annexure-7 disposed of the writ petition with a direction on Opposite Party No.1 to comply with the order within a period of three months. But while complying the said order vide the impugned order dtd.26.07.2021 under Annexure-11, services of the Petitioners though were regularized from the date of completion of six years of their respective contractual service, but financial benefit was only extended w.e.f. 23.02.2021 and the period from the date of completion of six years of contractual service till 23.03.2021 was treated on notional basis. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the State before the Tribunal, the matter was disposed of vide order dtd.10.03.2017 under Annexure-5 with a direction on the Opposite Parties to regularize the services of the Petitioners on completion of six years of contractual service and the said order having been upheld by this Court vide order dtd.24.01.2019 with a further direction to comply with the same vide order dtd.17.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No.13708 of 2020, Opposite Parties while regularizing the services of the Petitioners could not have treated the period from the date of completion of six years of contractual service till 23.03.2021 on notional basis. 4.6. It is accordingly contended that in view of nature of order passed by the Tribunal basing on the stand taken by the Opposite Parties in the counter affidavit and confirmation of the same by this Court, Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get all the financial benefits from the date of completion of six years of contractual service as reflected in the impugned order dtd.26.07.2021 under Annexure-11 in place of 23.03.2021. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // Though it is not disputed by the learned AGA that basing on the stand taken by the State-Opposite Parties before the Tribunal in O.A. No.404(C)/2015, the matter was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dtd.10.03.2017 under Annexure-5 so confirmed by this Court vide order dtd. 24.01.2019 under Annexure-6, but it is contended that after such orders passed by the Tribunal so confirmed by this Court, the Cabinet while taking a decision to regularize the services of the Petitioners on completions of six years of continuous service on contractual basis, but with the condition that they will get the financial benefits from the date the Cabinet took such a decision i.e. 23.03.2021. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the decision taken by the Cabinet, Petitioners while being regularized from the date of completion of six years of contractual service, financial benefit was extended w.e.f. 23.03.2021 and the interim period was treated on notional basis. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity is there with the order dtd. 26.07.2021 so far as it relates to treating the period from date of completion of six years of contractual service till 23.03.2021 on notional basis. Page 5 of 7 // 6 // 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that all the Petitioners were engaged on contractual basis in the year 2008. In spite of completion of six years of continuous service, when they were not regularized in terms of the decision taken in the G.A Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2023, Petitioners approached the Tribunal in O.A No.404(C)/2015 claiming regularization of their services on completion of six years of continuous service. The Tribunal basing on the stand taken by the State-Opposite Parties in Para-6 of the counter so cited hereinabove, disposed of the matter with a direction on the Opposite Parties to regularize the services of the Petitioners on completion of six years of contractual service. 6.1. Even though the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5 was assailed by the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No.14761 of 2018, but the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dtd.24.01.2019 under Annexure-6. Not only that vide order dtd.17.07.2020 under Annexure- 7, this Court further directed Opposite Party No.1 to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal so confirmed by this Court. On the face of the stand taken in Para-6 of the counter affidavit in O.A No.404(C)/2015, and the order passed by the Tribunal and by this Court, it is the view of this Court that Petitioners are eligible and Page 6 of 7 // 7 // entitled to get the financial benefits from the date of their regularization as indicated in the impugned order under Annexure-11. However, considering the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit and the fact that the Petitioners have been regularized on completion of six years of continuous service, this Court think it just and proper to allow financial benefits to the extent of 50% as due and admissible for the period from the date of regularization till 23.03.2021. This Court accordingly directs Opposite Party No.1 to calculate the entitlements of the Petitioners to the extent of 50% and disburse the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-Jul-2024 13:52:16 Page 7 of 7