The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9216 of 2024 Amar Kumar Behera ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Niranjan Nayak Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.D.Mohapatra, ASC -versus- ..... 1) State Of Odisha 2) Odisha Hydro Power Corp. Ltd., Bbsr 3) Md, Odisha Hydro Power Corp. Ltd., Bbsr 4) Director(hr) , Odisha Hydro Power Corp. Ltd., Bbsr 5) Commnr Cum Secy To Govt., Dept Of Water Resources
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.04.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed in the Writ Petition. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: Page 1 of 5. 1. Admit the writ application. 2. Call for the records. 3. Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. parties to show cause as to why the service of the petitioner will not be considered for regularisation and if the Opp. parties do not show cause or failed to show sufficient cause; 4. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to regularise the service of the petitioner taking into account the long and uninterrupted twenty nine (29) years of service and extend all the consequential financial service benefits within a stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. And pass any other order/orders or direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed as a Contingent Khalasi on 31.05.1994. Since 31.05.1994 the Petitioner has been performing his duties as Contingent Khalasi for more than last 29 years i.e. more than a quarter of century. The long continuance of the Petitioner on Congingent Khalasi itself Manifest that the nature of work is performing is perennial in nature. The Opposite Parties should have regularised the service of the Petitioner instead of continuing the Petitioner on adhoc basis of such a long time. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although he has approached the Chairman of the Corporation by filing a representation on 03.02.2022 under Annexure-8, no decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner. He further contended that the case of the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the ratio laid down by this Court in Prasanna Kumar Sahoo & ors. Vs. State of Odisha & ors. in W.P.(C) No.11392 of 2021 passed on 12.12.2022. The order passed by the learned Single Judge Bench in above named Prasanna Kumar Sahoo’s case has already been confirmed by the Division Page 2 of 5. Bench in a writ appeal preferred by the State-Opposite Parties bearing W.A. No.1741 of 2023 vide order dated 06.11.2023. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the case of the Petitioner deserves to be considered by the Opposite Parties for regularization of his service. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, try to draw a distinction by submitting that the Petitioner was engaged as a adhoc employee. It was also contended that the very entry of the Petitioner into the service not by any valid selection procedure. He further contended that admittedly the Petitioner was engaged after the cut off date i.e. 12.04.1993 in view of the circular of the Finance Dept. dated 15.05.1997. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner could not have been considered under the aforesaid circular dated 15.05.1997. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the claim of the Petitioner is not supported by any legal law, accordingly, the writ application is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful considerations of the background facts and materials on record, this Court observed that it is not disputed that the Petitioner has been working for almost more than a quarter of century as an adhoc employee. That itself it indicates that the nature of work is perennial. Moreover, this Court is also of the considered view that the after allowing the Petitioner to work on ad hoc basis for 29 years, the Opposite Parties are Page 3 of 5. estopped to say that the Petitioner illegality included and that since the Petitioner is working as ad hoc basis and was appointed after the cut off date, his services cannot be regularized. The aforesaid context, this Court would like to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgment i.e. in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka –v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 265 as well as by this Court in case of Basanta Kumar Barik –v.- State of Odisha and others (WPC(OA) No.616 of 2017 decided on 26.11.2021). 7. Keeping in view the settled legal positions as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court further taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has been working for last 29 years uninterruptedly on ad hoc basis, that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a representation on 10.05.2023 under Annexure-8, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Prasanna Kumar Sahoo’s case (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been referred to hereinabove within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with the well established legal principles discussed hereinabove. The Page 4 of 5. final decision so taken be also communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such a decision. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Apr-2024 10:03:26