The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.24473, 24475, 24477 & 24539 of 2020 Dinesh Tirkey …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Biswal, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. …. -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI Along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC (Opp. Party No. 2) Mr. S.C. Rath, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
Decision
ORDER 24.01.2024 (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioners have filed the present writ petitions inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that, in the interest of justice, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed t implement the new pension scheme in respect of the petitioner and also as to why the opposite parties shall not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as Clerk-cum-Typist by treating him as a staff of Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology; // 2 // And as to why the opp. Parties shall not be directed to give the salary to the petitioner as per the 7th pay commission recommendation; If the opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause/irrelevant cause, then made the said rule nisi absolute. 4. It is contended that even though in terms of the re-advertisement issued by the University on 31.10.2013 under Annexure-1, Petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 24473, 24475 & 24479 of 2020 were appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist and Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 24539 of 2020 was appointed against the post of Computer, but when no step was taken by the University to regularize their services, the present writ petitions were filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 5. It is the further case of the Petitioners that similar nature of appointments made under ‘Comprehensive Scheme’ as against the post of Computer, the appointee therein has been regularized vide office order dtd.06.02.2018 under Annexure-P to the counter so filed by the University. It is accordingly contended that since similar appointee under the self same scheme has been regularized vide order dtd.06.02.2018, Petitioners being similarly situated having been appointed under the same scheme; they are also eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization. It is accordingly contended that appropriate order be issued to the University to take a final decision on the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization. 6. Mr. S.C. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand contended that even though Petitioners have been appointed in terms of Annexure-1 under the comprehensive Page 2 of 5 // 3 // scheme, but since the post in which Petitioners are continuing have not yet been approved by the Govt., University is not in a position to take any step to regularize their services. It is also contended that after 30.09.2020, the services of the Petitioners have not been extended further and they are continuing under the Scheme by virtue of the interim order passed on 28.09.2020. However, Mr. Rath does not dispute the benefit of regularization extended in favour of the appointee under the self same scheme vide office order dtd.06.02.2018 under Annexure-P. Stand taken by the Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 in Para 6, 7 & 8 of the counter is reproduced hereunder:- “6. That, in reply to para-3, it is humbly submitted that an advertisement was issued by OUAT to fill up differentpost fo Comprehensive Scheme sanctioned by funding agencies for the scheme vide Advertisement No. 1887 dated 31.10.2013 Annexure-1 of the writ petition in which 03 posts of Clerk-cum-Typist and two Computer posts on contractual basis were advertised in this advertisement the following service conditions were mentioned. 1. The appointment is co-terminus with closure of the scheme. The University will not be held responsible to adjust the employees in any circumstances. 2. No terminal benefit is applicable. As per this advertisement the petitioner has been engaged as Clerk-cum-Typist on contractual basis in certain terms and conditions vide Office Order No. 22987 dtd 29.09.2014 and revised Office Order No. 29555/UAT dated 27.12.2014, In one of the conditions in the engagement Order at Sl. No.04, it is mentioned that the contractual engagement shall not confer any right or claim for regular appointment, not for further continuance in any of the office/scheme/department of OUAT. No claim for any service benefits from the contractual engagement shall be admissible. The petitioner while joined in the post was well aware of this condition. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // his 7. That, in reply to para-4 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner joined in the contractual engagement w.e.f.30.09.2014(AN) and contractual in extended continuously without break by engagement Registrar, OUAT in different phases, up to 01.10.2015, 01.10.2016, 01.10.2017, 01.10.2018, 01.10.2019 and his extension of engagement expires on 30.09.2020. As per interim order of the Hon’ble High Court the status quo as on 28.09.2020 with regard to the service condition of the petitioner is maintained vide Office Order No. 14495 dtd.04.11.2020. Copy of the Office Order No. 14495 dtd.04.11.2020 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-N. 8. humbly submitted that the performance report of the employee which is confidential in nature furnished by the Controlling Officer, Director, Comprehensive Scheme in respect of the petitioner to the higher authority for evaluation of work performance and consideration of further extension by the higher authority. The petitioner being a contractual employee in the office, cunningly acquired the copy of the official documents which she supposed not to be known to him. While the extension of the contractual service of the petitioner was under process and under consideration of the authority, the official document copy acquired by the petitioner and enclosed as Annexure-3 series of the writ petition which raised question in handling official documents. Such doubtful integrity persons like petitioner’s continuance raises question while he takes official documents misutulizing his position by manipulating.” 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the nature of prayer made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 4 to take a lawful decision on the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is observed that while considering the claim, relevancy and effect of office order dtd.06.02.2018 as well as the stand taken by Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 in the counter be taken into consideration. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Till a decision is taken as directed with regard to regularization of the services of the Petitioner, status-quo as on today shall be maintained. 8. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case records. Sneha (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Jan-2024 14:40:43 Page 5 of 5