The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25898 of 2022 Prasanta Kumar Biswal …. Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 23.10.2025 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to;
Decision
i) to admit the writ petition. ii) to quash the office order No.9160 dated 04.7.2022 as at Annexure-12. iii) direct the opp. parties to extend the benefit of continuity of service and terminal benefits from the period from 08.3.1999 to 31.5.2020 including fixation of pay w.e.f 08.3.1999 in obedience to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as at Annexure-4 and 5. iv) to direct the opp. parties to promotion order in favour of the petitioner to next higher rank i.e. Revenue // 2 // Inspector w.e.f the date of promotion of his counterparts taking into consideration the contract period of service from 08.3.1999 to 31.5.2020 as continuity of service including consequential service benefits. v) pass such order/orders as deem fit and proper; And, for this act of kindness the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that on the face of his continuance as an Amin on contractual basis vide order dtd.22.12.1998 under Annexure-1, Petitioner when was not regularized, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A No.1223 of 2001. The Tribunal vide order dtd.04.05.2016 under Annexure-3 disposed of the matter by directing Opposite Party No.1 to take necessary step for regularization of the services of the Petitioner keeping in view GA Department Resolutions dtd.17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014. 4.1. It is contended that challenging such order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3161 of 2018. This Court vide order dtd.09.03.2018 under Annexure-4, disposed of the Writ Petition in the light of the order passed on 12.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.1515 of 2011. This Court further directed the authority to examine the case of the Petitioner in terms of the ratio decided in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC-1 and Page 2 of 8 // 3 // regularize the services of the Petitioner with all consequential service benefit as early as possible. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1515 of 2011 was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.29965 of 2018. Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dtd.06.08.2019 under Annexure-5 while disposing the appeal held as follows:- “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the respondents are on for about 19 years and also contractual basis considering the fact that respondents are employed in the post which is of perennial nature, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the respondents shall be entitled to regular pay scales only from the date on which they are actually regularized and appointed. It is made clear that the period in which the respondents have worked shall be taken into consideration only for continuity of the service and for calculation of the terminal benefits. The respondents shall be considered for regularization in any available vacancies within a period of six months from today. We make it clear that since the above order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court and further order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Page 3 of 8 // 4 // Court under Annexures-4 and 5, services of the Petitioner though was regularized vide order dtd.30.05.2020 under Annexure-6 and he was extended with the financial benefit from the date of regularization, but Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of continuity in service from the date he was initially engaged was not extended to in favour of the Petitioner. 4.4. Accordingly, Petitioner made a detailed representation before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur-Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-9. Request made by the Petitioner under Annexure-9 when was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.41637 of 2021 and this Court vide order dtd.02.02.2022 under Annexure-10 directed Opposite Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner’s claim. However, without proper appreciation of the order passed under Annexure-4 and further order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Annexure-5, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.04.07.2022 under Annexure-12, on the ground that since Petitioner was regularized vide the impugned order dtd.30.05.2020 his seniority has to be reckoned from the date he was so appointed. 4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner taking note of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Page 4 of 8 // 5 // Court under Annexure-5 contended that Hon’ble Apex Court while making the Petitioner entitled to get regular pay scale from the date he was actually regularized, also held that Petitioner will be entitled to get the benefit of continuity of service. In view of such order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Petitioner’s continuity in service has to be taken from the date he was initially engaged on contractual basis vide order dtd.22.12.1998 under Annexure-1 for the purpose of getting consequential service benefits. 4.6. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the nature of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.04.07.2022 under Annexre-12 is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.2. While supporting the impugned order, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court and further order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Petitioner since was regularized vide order dtd.30.05.2020 under Annexure-6, Petitioner’s seniority to be counted from the date he was so regularized. It is also contended Page 5 of 8 // 6 // that order passed under Annexure-5 cannot be taken as a precedent as has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected needs no interference. Stand taken in Para-9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “9. That in reply to the averment made in paras-11 to 18 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that reply in this regard has been placed at para-3 of the counter affidavit. Regarding promotion to the rank of Revenue Inspector of the petitioner, it is humbly submitted that, as the services of the petitioner has been regularized w.e.f.30.05.2020 as Amin and as per Rule-11 of ODRS Rules, 1983 and its amendments thereof, he will be entitled to get promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector after completion of at least 5 years of continuous service on the first day of January of the year in which the Departmental Promotion Committee meets. Copy of Rule- 11 of ODRS Rules, 1983 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-B/2. for vide This deponent further humbly submits that necessary letter No.6453 clarification was sought dtd.25.04.2023 of Collector, Jagatsinghpur regarding the entitlement of regular pay scales, entry into GPF continuity of the service and calculation of the terminal benefits in favour of 23 numbers of employees including petitioner. In this regard, necessary clarification was received vide letter No.17707 dtd. 17.05.2023 of Under to Government, Revenue & Disaster Secretary Management Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar with Finance Department views that the placement of such employees under the coverage of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (Prior to Amendment 2005) and the G.P.F. (Orissa) Rules, 1938 is not a justifiable claim. After receipt of above clarification from the Government in the Department of Revenue & Disaster Management Deptt., the Collector & District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur (Opp. Party No.2) instructed all the Heads of Offices under the letter jurisdiction of Jagatsinghpur district vide Page 6 of 8 // 7 // No.17190/Estt. dtd.18.11.2023 for implementation of the instruction of the Government. Copy of letter No.6453 dtd.25.04.2023 of Collector, Jagatsinghpur, letter No.17707 dtd. 17.05.2023 of to Govt., Revenue & Disaster Under Secretary Management Deptt. And letter No.17190/Estt. Dtd.18.11.2023 are annexed herewith as Annexure- C/2, D/2 and E/2 respectively. from As far as, terminal benefits of the petitioner is concerned, it is the benefits which will be given after on termination superannuation or compulsory retirement or death. Hence, the averments made by the petitioner have no merit and the petitioner trying to mislead this Hon’ble Court.” retirement service i.e. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as an Amin in the establishment of Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.22.12.1998 under Annexure-1. Taking into account the nature of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3161 of 2018 under Annexure-4 and the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 29965 of 2018 under Annexure-5, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not just and proper. Taking into account the nature of order passed under Annexure-5, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner’s continuity in service has to be counted from the date he was initially engaged on contractual basis. Observation of the Hon’ble Court that order under Annexure-5 cannot be Page 7 of 8 // 8 // treated as a precedent, cannot be made applicable as Petitioner in terms of the order passed under Annexures-4 & 5 was regularized vide order dtd.30.05.2020 under Annexure-6. 6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.04.07.2022 under Annexure-12 and while quashing said order this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of continuity in service in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Annexure-5. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 7. Accordingly, 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: 30-Oct-2025 18:47:32 Page 8 of 8