The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.40447 of 2023 R. Anuradha …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Behera, Adv State of Odisha & Others …. -versus- Opp. Party Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 16.04.2025 11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to order dt.19.03.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced copy of letter dt.30.09.2014 in Court. The same be kept on record.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dt.15.11.2023 so passed by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation in the post of Jr. Data Entry Operator was rejected. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was initially appointed as a // 2 // Jr. Programmer in the office of Opp. Party No.4 though out-sourcing on 01.10.2007. However, while so continuing, a post of Jr. Data Entry Operator was created in the office of Opp. Party No.4 with due concurrence of the Finance Dept. vide letter dt.05.08.2014 under Annexure-1. On such creation of the post with due sanction of the Government, Petitioner was engaged as a Jr. Data Entry Operator on contractual basis vide Officer order dt.10.10.2014 under Annexure-2. In terms of the said order, Petitioner joined in her post on 11.10.2014 as found from Anexure-3. 4.2. It is contended that since the Petitioner was appointed as against a post with due creation of the same by the Government, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation in terms of the resolution issued by the G.A Deptt. on 17.09.2013 under Annexure-4. However when no action was taken to extend the benefit of regularisation after completion of 6 years of engagement on contractual basis, Petitioner moved the Government by making a representation under Annexure-5 on 07.12.2022. The representation was also duly forwarded to Government-Opp. Party No.1 vide letter dt.21.06.2022 under Annexure-6. 4.3. On the face of such recommendation when no decision was taken on the claim of the Petitioner to get Page 2 of 7 // 3 // the benefit of regularisation, Petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.29339 of 2023. This Court vide order dt.08.09.2023 under Annexure-7, directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on the representation filed by the Petitioner under Annexure- 5.
Legal Reasoning
4.4. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim vis-(cid:224)-vis the resolution issued by the G.A. Deptt on 17.09.2013, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.15.11.2023 under Annexure-8. 4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner while continuing through out-sourcing and on creation of a post in question vide letter dt.05.08.2014 under Anexure-1, was appointed as against the post of Jr. Data Entry Operator on contractual basis vide order of appointment issued on 10.10.2014, in view of the stipulation contained in the resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 17.09.2013 under Annexure-4, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation on completion of 6 years of contractual engagement continuously. However, when her claim was not considered, she moved the authorities under Annexure-5 and thereafter this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.29339 of 2023. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 4.6. When this Court directed for consideration of Petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected without proper appreciation of her claim and the guideline issued by the G.A Department in its resolution dt.17.09.2013. It is also contended that similar claim after being allowed by this Court, benefit of regularisation has been extended vide orders issued under Annexure-9 series. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is required to be interfered with by this Court and with a direction on the Opp. Parties to regularise the services of the Petitioner. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter so filed by the Opp. Parties. Though it is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that Petitioner while continuing through out-sourcing and on creation of the post in terms of letter dt.05.09.2014 under Annexure-1 Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide order dt. 10.10.2014 under Annexure-2, but Petitioner’s claim was rejected as it was found that at the time of engagement of the Petitioner vide order dt.10.10.2014, stipulation contained in the resolution dt.17.09.2013 has not been followed in letter and spirit. Since proper procedure has not been followed at the time of initial engagement of the Petitioner on contractual basis vide order dt.10.10.2014 and the same is not in consonance with G.A and P.G Deptt. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // resolution dt. 16.01.2014 under Annexure-C/1, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide order issued under Annexure-8. 5.1. It is also contended that since the stipulation contained in Resolution dt.17.09.2013 under Annexure-4 and resolution dt.16.01.2014 under Annexure-C/1, was never followed while providing appointment to the Petitioner on contractual basis vide order dt.10.10.2014 under Annexure-2, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization and the same has been rightly rejected, which needs no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially engaged as a Jr. Programmer in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 through out- sourcing w.e.f.01.10.2007. However, on creation of the post of Jr. Data Entry Operator by the Government vide letter dt.05.08.2014 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as against the post of Jr. Data Entry Operator vide Office order dt.10.10.2014 of Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-2. In terms of the said order, Petitioner joined as against the post of Jr. Data Entry Operator in the office of Opp. Party No.4 on 11.10.2014 as would be found from Annexure-3. 6.1. Since the Petitioner on creation of the post of Jr. Data Entry Operator under Annexure-1 was duly Page 5 of 7 // 6 // engaged on contractual basis vide order dt.10.10.2014, the grounds taken by Opp. Party No.1 while rejecting the claim that stipulation contained in Resolution dt.17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 has not been followed is not acceptable to this Court as Petitioner has no role with regard to such illegalities or irregularities committed by the authorities. 6.2. Since admittedly, Petitioner on creation of the post was engaged on contractual basis vide order dt.10.10.2014, as per considered view of this Court her claim for regularisation after rendering six (6) years of continuous service comes under the purview of the resolution issued by the G.A Deptt. on 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014. Since there is no dispute that Petitioner has already completed more than 10 years of service on contractual basis, this Court placing reliance on the orders passed by this Court under annexure-9 series and the implementation of the same by different orders issued by the Opp. Party No.1 under the same set of Annexures, is inclined to quash order dt.15.11.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-8. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to pass an order of regularisation in favour of the Petitioner, regularising the Petitioner from the date of completion of 6 (six) years of contractual service with all service and financial benefits. Such an order be passed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticatin of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2025 17:16:36 Page 7 of 7