High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTAC TTACK nty Basanti Mohanty ..... Petitioner WP(C) No.33285 of 2023 Represented B Rama Krishna nted By Adv. - rishna Bisoi isha 1) State Of Odisha ursing, Odisha 2) Director Of Nursing yurbhanj 3) Cdmpho, Mayurbha -versus- ..... CORAM: posite Parties Opposit Represented B D.Nayak, A.G ented By Adv. – k, A.G.A. THE HON' HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMA UMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.04.2024 This matt s matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrange rrangement (Virtual Order No. 02. 1. /Physical Mode) Mode). 2. Office is ice is directed to remove the noting from the ca the cause list, as it appears that the at the same has been wrongly reflected in the cau the cause list. 3. Heard lea ard learned counsel appearing for the petitione etitioner as well as learned Additio dditional Government Advocate appearing f ring for the State- Opposite Partie Parties. Perused the writ petition as well a well as documents annexed thereto thereto. 4. The prese e present writ petition has been filed by the pe the petitioner with the following pr ing prayers: view of the aforesaid facts and circumstan d above, it is ardently prayed that this Hon’b dly be pleased to antedate the date of regulari oner on completion of six years of contractua tent all service and financial benefits to her “In view narrated ab may kindly petitioner o and extent ulation as fixed by this Hon’ble Court. time stipula /or /or And order/order the fitness o issue any other appropriate w rders, direction/directions as deem fit and p ness of the case.” mstances as on’ble Court ularization of ctual service her within a writ/writs, nd proper in Page 1 of 4. 5. It is subm is submitted by learned counsel for the petit petitioner that an identical matte matter was placed before the Odisha Administra inistrative Tribunal by filing O.A. N O.A. No.1821 of 2015. The learned Tribunal vid nal vide order dated 21.07.2017, by 7, by a detailed order, allowed the O.A. by . by directing the Opposite Partie Parties to take appropriate decision for regu r regularization of service of the ap the applicant in those cases who have complet ompleted 6 years of service keeping eping in view the fact that similar benefit has b t has been extended in favour of the of the Junior Radiographers and Staff Nurses and ses and accordingly, the date of regul f regularization was antedated on completion of ion of six years with consequential se tial service benefits. The order passed by the by the Tribunal on 21.07.2017 was
Legal Reasoning
7 was challenged before this Court by filing W.P g W.P.(C) No.4099 of 2021 that is hat is in the matter of State of Odisha and oth d others V. Ajaya Kumar Behera hera and others by the State-Opposite Partie Parties. A division bench of this C this Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2021, 021, by a detailed order, dismisse smissed the writ application with certain rtain observations. Following the af the aforesaid order several writ applications bea ns bearing W.P.(C) No.12313 of 2 of 2021 were disposed of on 02.11.2021 b 021 by a Division Bench. In the af the aforesaid factual legal backdrop, learned co rned counsel for the petitioner submi submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed rected to reconsider the case of the of the petitioner by keeping in view the afo aforesaid settled position of law f law. In course of his argument learned co further referring to the order dated 16th Ma petitioner furthe ed counsel for the May, 2008, under Annexure-4/1 submitted that the petitioner’s name was was sponsored for being appointed ointed as staff nurse under the NRHM. Accordi ccordingly, she was appointed as a S as a Staff Nurse. He further referred to the reso he resolution under Annexure-5 seri 5 series to submit before this Court that the Go the Government has taken a policy d olicy decision to regularize the service of staff n staff nurse engaged on contractual b ctual basis on the completion of six years of con of continued service on contractual b tual basis. 6. Learned rned Additional Government Advocate on th on the other hand Page 2 of 4. contended that that petitioner does not come within the pu the purview of the resolution passe passed by the Government. He further conte contended that the petitioner was ap was appointed as ANM and not against the post e post of staff nurse. Therefore, the , the status of the petitioner was disputed sputed. He further contended that that taking into consideration the service ren ce rendered by the petitioner and and similarly situated other employees, the nj vide order dated 29th ,December, 2020 under Mayurbhanj vid es, the CDM-PHO under Annexure-7, was pleased to r ed to regularize the service of the petitioner again r against the post of staff nurse in a s e in a scale of pay as provided in their respective pective appointment letters. Accord ccordingly, learned Additional Governme ernment Advocate contended that t that the petitioner should not have any further g rther grievance with regard to the r the regularization of his service as he has has already been regularized by t d by the order under Annexure-7 to the writ a it application. In such view of t of the matter, learned Additional Governm vernment Advocate submitted that that present writ application is devoid o oid of merit and accordingly the ly the same should be dismissed. 7. Having h ving heard the learned counsels appearing for t g for the respective parties and on a d on a careful examination of the background fa und facts as well as materials on rec on record, this Court observes that similar issue r issues were placed before the learn learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal relatin relating to the staff nurses. Learned earned Tribunal had directed to regularize their e their service upon completion of si n of six years of service. Such order passed by th d by the tribunal has already been up een upheld by the division bench of this cour s court as has been referred to herei o hereinabove in detail. In the aforesaid backdro ackdrop, this Court deems it prope proper to dispose of the writ application at on at the stage of admission by di by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consid consider the case of the petitioner afr ner afresh by keeping in view the order passed b ssed by the tribunal as well as by th by this Court as has been referred to hereinab reinabove, within a period of two m two months from the date of communication o tion of copy of this order. The petit e petitioner is directed to approach the Opposit pposite Party No. 1 Page 3 of 4. along with a cop h a copy of today’s order as well as the orders a rders and judgments referred to here o hereinabove within a period of two weeks fr eeks from today. In such eventuality tuality the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to well to consider the grievance of th of the petitioner and dispose of the same in me in terms of the aforesaid directi rection by passing a speaking order. The fina he final decision so taken be commu ommunicated to the petitioner within two weeks weeks from the date of taking such a such a decision. Further, it is directed that the O t the Opposite Party No.1 shall exam l examine whether the petitioner is covered by th d by the ratio of the orders/judgment gments referred to hereinabove. In the event event the Opposite Party No.1 come 1 comes to a conclusion that the petitioner is so c is so covered by the ratio of the or the orders/judgments referred to hereinabove, bove, then similar benefits be exte e extended in faovur of the petitioner, provide rovided there is no other legal impe l impediment to the same. th 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions th ections, the writ application stan
Decision
n stands disposed of. Issue urge ue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rul er Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra Judge ra ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Apr-2024 13:51:00 Page 4 of 4.