The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 16287 of 2022 ..... Mukunda Prasad Mallick Petitioner Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 04.08.2025 Order No.10 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.03.06.2022 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization under the provisions contained in Notification dtd.12.11.2013 of the G.A. Department and further notification issued by the said Department has been rejected. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner by facing due selection process was engaged as a Peon in the establishment of Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the year 2011 on daily wage basis. While so continuing as a daily wage Peon in the establishment of Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Govt. when created 4 posts of Peon for their engagement in Odisha Administrative Tribunal on contractual basis, taking into account Page 1 of 7. the fact that Petitioner was duly selected while being engaged as a daily wage Peon in the year 2011, Petitioner was appointed as against one of such created posts of Peon vide order dtd.28.11.2014 under Annexure-1 on contractual basis. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide order of appointment issued on 28.11.2014 under Annexure-1, in view of the G.A. Department Resolution issued on 12.11.2013 under Annexure- 6 and further Resolution issued on 14.01.2014, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of regularization after completion of 6 years of continuous service on contractual basis. 4.2. However, when the same was not extended, Petitioner moved the authority and thereafter this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4735 of 2022. This Court vide order dtd.17.02.2022 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.03.06.2022 under Annexure-5 on the ground that while being appointed on contractual basis, since no selection process has been followed nor ORV Act & Rules has been followed, the very appointment of the Petitioner on contractual basis is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of regularization. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on the documents available under Annexure-4, contended that Petitioner while being engaged on daily wage basis, a selection process was initiated and out of 21 candidates who made their applications, the Selection Committee in its proceeding dtd.12.10.2011, found eligible 6 persons and Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 2 of the said list. Accordingly, Petitioner was engaged on Page 2 of 7. daily wage basis as a Peon in the year 2011 by facing due selection process so initiated by OAT. During his continuance on daily wage basis when Govt. created 4 posts of Peon vide letter dtd.25.10.2014 under Annexure-A/1, the authorities of Odisha Administrative Tribunal thinks it fit and proper to appoint the Petitioner against one such created post of Peon taking into account his continuance as a daily wage Peon in the year 2011 and issued the order of appointment on 28.11.2014 under Annexure-1. Appointment of the Petitioner on contractual basis was also never objected by the State- Opp. Parties.
Legal Reasoning
4.4. It is contended that since 28.11.2014 Petitioner is continuing on contractual basis till date. Placing reliance on stipulation contained in Resolution dtd.12.11.2013 under Annexure-6 further Resolution issued on 14.01.2014, it is contended that Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization is squarely covered by the said Resolution as he has already continued for more than 10 years in the meantime. 4.5. It is also contended that vide notification dtd.16.10.2022 though Odisha Group “B”, “C” & Group “D” posts (Repealed and Special Provisions) Rules, 2022 was repealed, but in the said notification vide Rule 4, it was clearly indicated that the initial appointees appointed under the contractual Rules, now in positions shall be deemed to have been appointed against the post on regular basis as on the date of commencement of these rules. Rule 4 of the Rules reads as follows:- “4. Special Provisions.- (1) The initial appointees appointed under the contractual Rules now in positions shall be deemed to Page 3 of 7. have been appointed against the post on regular basis as on the date of commencement of these rules. (2) On such regular appointment under sub-rule (1), the pay of such employees shall be fixed by way of granting notional increments considering the date of their contractual appointment. (3) The employees who have been regularly appointed in the service after completion of 6 years of service under the respective Contractual Rules shall be allowed for fixation of their pay as on the date of commencement of these rules by way of granting notional increments considering the date of their contractual appointment. (4) The employees whose services have been so regularised shall be allowed service benefits like promotion etc. in the cadre on notional basis to which they would have been entitled as per rules, had they been recruited on regular basis.” 4.6. It is contended that not only the claim of the Petitioner was covered under the earlier notification issued on 12.11.2013 but also in view of the notification dtd.16.10.2022, Petitioner became eligible to be treated as a regular employee w.e.f. the date of issuance of the said notification taking into account his continuance w.e.f.25.10.2014. However, without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.03.06.2022 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of regularization. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so Page 4 of 7. filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 3, contended that even though Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 2011, but after creation of the post by the Govt. in the G.A. Department on 25.06.2014 under Annexure-A/1, since no selection process was initiated by OAT to fill up those posts on contractual basis and Petitioner was simply adjusted as against one such post with the order of appointment issued on 28.11.2014 under Annexur-1, the same is contrary to the provisions contained in the Resolution dtd.12.11.2013 & 14.01.2014. Petitioner accordingly is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit. 5.1. It is contended that since in terms of Resolution dtd.12.11.2013 so issued under Annexure-B/1, no selection process was initiated by the OAT to fill up the post on contractual basis and ORV Act & Rules was also not followed, the very selection and appointment of the Petitioner on contractual basis vide order issued under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5.2. Since the Petitioner was illegally appointed as against a contractual post without following the notification issued by the G.A. Department on 12.11.2013 under Annexure-B/1, his claim has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially engaged as a Peon on daily wage basis basing on a selection process initiated in the year 2011 as found from Annexure-4. In the said selection process, out of 21 candidates, the Selection Committee recommended 6 candidates, which includes the present Petitioner being placed at Sl. No. 2. Page 5 of 7. 6.1. Basing on such selection process so initiated, Petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis as a Peon in the year 2011. Subsequently, when 4 posts of Peon on contractual basis was created by the G.A. Department vide letter dt.25.10.2014 under Annexure-A/1, the authorities of OAT adjusted the Petitioner as against one such post of Peon with issuance of the order of appointment on 28.11.2014 under Annexure-1. Basing on such order issued on 28.11.2014, Petitioner which is not disputed continued as a Peon on contractual basis till date as against a sanctioned post. 6.2. Since the appointment of the Petitioner on contractual basis was never objected by the State, it is the view of this Court that after allowing him to continue for around 11 years, the plea taken while rejecting his claim for regularization cannot be accepted. Placing reliance on the notification issued by the G.A. Department on 12.11.2013 and subsequent notification issued on 14.01.2014, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of regularization after completion of six (6) years of contractual service. Not only that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 4 of the Odisha Group “B”, “C” & Group “D” posts (Repealed and Special Provisions) Rules, 2022, Petitioner is to be treated as a deemed regular employee w.e.f. the date of issuance of the said notification. 6.3. This Court is also of the view that Petitioner without any fault of his own, was appointed on contractual basis by the authorities of Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the year 2014 and in the meantime, he has already crossed the upper age limit, even if Petitioner will be taken as a daily wage employee from the year Page 6 of 7. 2011, Petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of regularization in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1, followed by State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247. 6.4. In that view of the matter, this Court taking into account Rule 4 of the repealing rules 2022, is of the view that Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of regularization from the date such a notification was issued on 16.10.2022. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to pass an appropriate order by regularizing the services of the Petitioner w.e.f.16.10.2022, but on notional basis. Financial benefit will only be extended from the date of order. Such an order be issued within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Aug-2025 10:41:12 Page 7 of 7.