This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Odisha Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's application for regularizing his service. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 18944 of 2015
15.07.2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate fo
r the State.
The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 20.
07.2015 passed in O.A. No. 1579 of 2011 wherein the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petiti
oner to regularize his service under work-charged establishment.
The petitioner claiming to have been engaged as a D.L.R. employee under the Ex
ecutive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division had earlier approached the Odisha Administrative Trib
unal in O.A. No. 1577 of 1999 praying for regularization of his service as a work charged empl
oyee. The Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2010 directed the respondents to consider his claim
for absorption in the work charged establishment in accordance with the Government instruction
filed on 04.01.2010. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Engineer-in-Chief (
Civil) Orissa vide order dated 10.10.2010 on the ground that the petitioner was not engaged as
DLR (Clerk) before 12.04.1993, which was the cut off date fixed by the Government. Challengin
g such rejection order, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 1579 of 2011 on the ground that he w
as engaged as DLR employee under Bhadrak Division on 27.11.1991 and such fact has not been tak
en into consideration by the authority while passing the order dated 04.01.2010.
The stand of the opposite parties before the Tribunal was that the name of the
petitioner and another has been manipulated in the office copy of the order dated
06.08.1998 and on verification of the original letter it was found that the said letter does n
ot contain the name of the applicant. There is also no document to show that the applicant had
worked as a DLR employee since 27.11.1991 and he was only given wages from 02.12.1995, which
is his initial date of engagement. Since his engagement was after the cut off date 12.04.1993,
the order dated 04.01.2010 was rightly passed.
The sole question before the Tribunal was to be decided as to whether the peti
tioner was joined prior to the cut off date or not. The Tribunal taking into consideration the
materials available on records and the contention raised by the respective parties came to a
conclusion that the petitioner failed to produce any such document showing that he was engaged
on 27.11.1991. The documents produced before the Tribunal were also found to be manufactured
and interpolated documents. The petitioner also could not produce any record showing that he
has received the wages from 01.01.1992 to 31.05.1996. Taking all such materials available befo
re it, the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner made in O.A. No. 1579 of 2011 by the
impugned order.
On considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and afte
r going through the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the
Tribunal has passed a just and reasoned order and there is no error apparent on the face of th
e record to be interfered with in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constit
ution of India.
The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
S. Panda, J.
S. N. Prasad, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Odisha Administrative Tribunal's rejection of the petitioner's regularization claim under Article 227.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (DL.R. employee regarding regularization)
State (Respondent)
S. Panda
S. N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court