The High Court
Case Details
IN TH ACK THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.9309 of 2024 Prashes Kumar D r Das & others …. Pet Petitioners Advocate Ms. S. Mohapatra, Ad -Versus- State of Odisha a and others …. Opposi Mr. H.K. Panigra Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, Advocate for O osite party igrahi, ASC r O.P.No.3 CORA MR. J RAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 01. 1. ORDER 04.09.2024 Heard M
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the pe petitioners and Mr. J.K. Mo Mohapatra, learned counsel for O.P.No.3. 2. Instant nt writ petition is filed by the petition tioners for quashment of t f the order under Annexure-4 with conse nsequential directions issued ued with regard to regularization of their eir services pursuant to the C e Court’s decision vide Annexure-3. 3. Ms. Moh ohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners ers submits that this Court by t by a judgment dated 22nd January, 2024 dire irected the authorities conce ncerned to consider regularization of the ser services of the petitioners ta taking into account the stand of the opposite site parties with reference to e to the additional affidavit filed therein. It is It is further submitted that at despite such an order with a direction ion to the concerned autho thority, the regularization of services of the pe petitioners has not taken pl place instead, it has been followed by the im impugned order under Ann Annexure-4, hence, therefore, the same is liab liable to be interfered with a h and set aside. 4. Referring ring to the counter affidavit filed through o h opposite party Nos. 2 & & 3, Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel sel for the opposite parties rties submits that two of the petitioners rs namely, petitioner No.1 & .1 & 2 have retired in the meantime and that ap t apart, the writ petition is is not maintainable being filed by the pe petitioners jointly. The furth urther contention of Mr. Mohapatra, learned co d counsel is that unless and u until, the approval of the Government is obt obtained in absence of any sa y sanctioned posts, the services of the petitione oners could not have been en regularized, hence, there is no error or or wrong committed by th y the authority concerned, namely, opposite pa party Nos. 2 & 3 by passin ssing the impugned order under Annexure-4 4 and the same is, therefore fore, not to be disturbed. 5. In course urse of hearing, when the additional affidavit avit filed in W.P.(C) No. 27 27153 of 2017 was confronted to, Mr. Mo Mohapatra, learned counsel sel for the opposite parties, he admits that a decision was taken for su r such regularization and in that regard, the M e M.D. had requested the Go Government in MS & ME Department to cons onsider the same. Furthermo rmore, it is submitted that as such approval val has not been received, so so therefore, the services of the petitioners co s could not be regularized an and in fact, the same did not materialize. 6. 7. Perused ed the judgment as at Annexure-3. The con contention of the opposite parties was tak taken into account and afte after a threadbare discussion, this Court direct rected such Page 2 of 4 Pag regularization of of services of the petitioners vide Annexure ure-3. The aforesaid directio ection is after considering the additional affid affidavit of opposite party N y No.1 therein, namely, M.D. Since the petitio titioner has been in service ce for quite long and there has been a direc irection for regularization of of services, it was not right and justified on on the part of the opposite p te parties and particularly, opposite party No.2 2 to turn around and take ake a stand that the same is not feasible in ab absence of any sanctioned p posts. In fact, it is claimed that such approva oval of the Government is n is necessary in order to regularize the service ices of the petitioners. In r n reply, Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel el for the petitioners claim aimed that the decision shall have to be taken ken by the Board of Direc irectors and as such, no such approval al of the Government is n is necessary. 8. Regard rd being had to the facts pleaded on n record, submissions of le f learned counsel for the respective parties and nd counter affidavit filed th through opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and d direction issued vide Anne nnexure-3, the Court is of the view that the o e opposite parties and parti articularly, opposite party No.2 shall have to to seek the concurrence of t of the Board of Directors for regularization of of services of the petitioner ners instead of taking a plea of any such app pproval of the Government ent, since the same is claimed to be not nece ecessary. In other words, the the Court is inclined to direct opposite party rty No.2 to ensure such regu regularization in compliance of the direction ions issued vide Annexure-3 3 seeking concurrence of the Board of Direc irectors and to go for such fu further exercise necessary to accomplish it con concluding the same at the e e earliest and within a stipulated period. Page 3 of 4 Pag 9. Hence, ce, it is ordered. 10. In the e result, the writ petition stands allowed ed. As a necessary corolla ollary, the impugned decision order under Ann Annexure-4 is hereby set asid aside with a direction to the opposite parties rties and in particular, oppos posite party No.2 to ensure regularization of of services of the petitioner ners receiving concurrence of the Board of D f Directors and to complete lete the entire exercise as soon as possible pr preferably within a period o d of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a f a copy of this order. 11. Urgent c nt copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Sep-2024 15:14:23 Page 4 of 4 Pag