The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OA) No.1724 of 2019 Sri Ajit Pattnaik …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 11.01.2023 Order No 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction on the Opp. Parties to regularize the services of the Petitioner on completion of six years of contractual service and extend the benefit of such regularization.
Decision
4. The factual backdrop giving rise to the filing of the writ petition is that, the Petitioner’s name having been sponsored by the employment exchange and after facing due selection process he was appointed on contractual basis as a Jr. Stenographer vide order dtd.18.06.2010 under Annexure-3. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that basing on the G.A. Department Resolution issued on 17.09.2013 under Annexure- 5 and subsequent clarification issued on 16.01.2014 under // 2 // Annexure-6 when the Petitioner was not regularized on completion of 6 years of continuous service, the present writ petition was filed with the aforesaid prayer. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the proceeding of the Meeting of the High Power Committee held on 05.09.2018 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. This Court after going through the minutes the proceeding finds that the Petitioner fulfils all the conditions indicated in the resolution dtd.16.01.2014 under Annexure-6, save and except partial non compliance of Clause (ii) of Para 1 of the Resolution. High Power Committee accordingly sought for clarification from G.A. Department with regard to partial non- compliance of Clause II of Para-1, before considering the claim of the Petitioner. It is contended that in spite of such decision taken by the High Power Committee when no further action was taken, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking regularization of his service on completion of six (6) years of service on contractual basis. 6. Mr. Balabantaray, learned AGA on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended that even though the stand taken by the present Petitioner that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was appointed after facing due process of selection, but the undertaking of the recruitment process was never published in the daily news paper. Non- publication of the recruitment process in the news paper violates Clause (ii) of Para 1 of the resolution dtd.16.01.2014. It is also contended that pursuant to the decision taken by the High Power Committee the G.A. Department though was moved to consider the case of the Petitioner for his regularization, but the same was not Page 2 of 5 // 3 // acceded to by the G.A. Department. The stand taken by the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 in Para 3 of the counter affidavit is reproduced hereunder:- “That, the case of Sri Ajit Pattnaik, Junior Grade Stenographer (Contractual employee) was considered for their regularization in the high Power committee meeting held on 05.09.2018 under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary to Government, Labour & ESI Department Resolution No. 26108/Gen. dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure-3 of the Original Application) and Resolution No 1066/Gen dated 16.01.2014 (Annexure-5 of the Original Application). The Committee examined carefully and found that the requirement of publishing of the advertisement in local newspapers has not been complied with letter & spirit by the then Director of Factories & Boilers at the time of engagement of these contractual employees. As regards regularization of the contractual employees, the Committee decided to seek clarification from the GA & PG Department. A copy of the proceedings of the High Power Committee meeting held on 05.09.2018. GA & PG Department have opined that since the contractual Group C & D appointees appointed in the Directorate of Factories & Boilers, Odisha, Bhubaneswar do not fulfill the conditions stipulated in GA & PG Department Resolution No. 1066/Gen dated 16.01.2014 read with GA & PG Department Resolution No. 26108/Gen, dated 17.09.2013 for regularization, the proposal of the Administrative Department is regretted with reiteration of the observations as intimated earlier by this Directorate. GA & PG Department in their earlier endorsement dated 16.11.2017 had furnished the following observation : “As per the Para-2 of GA Department Resolution No. 1066/Gen dated 16.01.2014, the contractual employees who do not fulfill the conditions stipulated in para-1 of the said Resolution shall not be Page 3 of 5 // 4 // eligible for regularization as per the said Resolution. Since the contractual employees of the Directorate of Factories & Boilers have not fulfilled the conditions contained in this Department Resolution No. 1066/Gen dated 16.01.2014, their cases are not coming within the ambit of this Deptt. Resolution No. 1066/Gen, dated 16.01.2014 for consideration.” 7. It is accordingly contended that since the recruitment process undertaken by the Department, sans any notification made in the daily newspaper, it amounts to non-compliance of Clause (ii) of Para 1 of the resolution dtd.16.01.2014 and the Petitioner is accordingly not entitled to get the benefit of regularization in terms of Annexure-6. 8. I have heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned AGA appearing for the Opp. Parties. On their consent the matter was taken up at the stage of admission and disposed of vide the present order. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the present Petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and after facing due selection process, he was appointed as a Jr. Stenographer on contractual basis vide order under Annexure-3 dtd.18.06.2010. It is also found that on being sponsored by the employment exchange the Petitioner was allowed to appear the written test vide letter dtd.23.04.2010 under Annexure-2. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Stenographer on contractual basis vide order dtd.18.06.2010. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 10. Therefore, since on the recommendation of the Selection Committee the Petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Stenographer vide order under Annexure-3, the stand taken by the learned State Counsel that the selection process undertaken by the Department violates Clause (ii) of Para 1 of the G.A. Deptt. Resolution dtd.16.01.2014, as per the view of this Court is not acceptable. For the latches of the Department in not making necessary newspaper publication, while calling for candidates through Employment Exchange, the Petitioner is not liable to suffer. Not only that in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Jatin Das & Ors., upheld by this Court in order dtd.10.05.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 6661 of 2018 and by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) No. 18642 of 2018, the Petitioner is eligible for regularization of his service. 11. Accordingly, this Court directs the O.P. No. 2 to absorb the Petitioner in the regular establishment on completion of 6 years of service, but on notional basis. Actual financial benefits will be paid only from the date of issue of the order of regularization. This Court directs the O.P. No. 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Page 5 of 5