Allowed

Chakradhar Behera v. State

Orissa HC27 Aug 2019WP(C)/2983/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court directed the State authorities to regularize the petitioner's service as a Light Motor Vehicle Driver after 19 years of irregular but sanctioned employment, relying on the Supreme Court's judgments in Umadevi and M.L. Keshari.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite parties to regularize the petitioner's service within three months from the date of the order.

Chakradhar Behera Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 2983 of 2006

¶2

17 27.08.2019

¶3

Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in compliance of order dated 20.02.2019, requisites for issuance of notice to opposite party no.3 has already been filed, but A.D. has not returned.

¶4

Earlier on 07.01.2019 this Court called for report from the postal authority as to whether notice has been served on the opposite party no.3 or not. To that extent track report has been submitted by the postal authority that the same has been served. In that view of the matter, notice as against opposite party no.3 is treated to be sufficient.

¶5

Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 3 and 4.

¶6

Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been continuing as Light Motor Vehicle Driver in Burla N.A.C. now under Sambalpur Municipal Corporation with effect from 01.12.1999 on temporary basis. In the meantime, as the posts of Light Motor Vehicle Driver have been sanctioned, the services of the petitioner should be regularized against the said post. He has referred to the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , 2006 (4) SCC 1, wherein in paragraph 53 the apex Court has held that the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure the services of such irregularly appointed who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in State of Karnataka and others v.

¶7

M.L.Keshari and others , 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982, wherein in paragraph 7 the apex Court has held as follows :

¶8

7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against regularization enunciated in Umadevi if the following conditions are fulfilled:

¶9

“(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued hi m in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶10

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possesses the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive-selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.”

¶11

In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing against a sanctioned post of Light Motor Vehicle Driver and completed 19 years of service even though his appointment is irregular, he should be regularized in service in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Umadevi (supra) and M.L.Keshari (supra).

¶12

It is of relevance to note that in a similar case, in respect of Angul Municipality, this Court vide order dated 27.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 26860 of 2013 directed the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioner therein in view of the judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi (supra) and M.L.Keshari (supra). Against the said order dated 27.11.2014, the State of Odisha, as well as Angul

¶13

Municipality preferred W.A. No. 407 of 2015 which was dismissed on 19.01.2016. Against the order dated 19.01.2016 passed in W.A. No. 407 of 2015, the State as well as Angul Municipality filed S.L.P. before the apex Court and by a common order dated 13.05.2016, the S.L.P. was dismissed. Consequentially, the State authorities issued office order dated 06.06.2016 for regularizing the petitioner in the said writ application.

¶14

In view of such position, the opposite parties are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is allowed.

¶16

Urgent certified copy be granted on proper application.

¶17

.….………………… Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J

¶18

Ajaya

Chakradhar Behera v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakradhar Behera v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Ku.Mohanta Vs State and Ors.

Pravat Pr.Parhi Vs State

Bhojraj Naik Vs State and Ors.

Jasobanti Rath Vs State and Ors.

Debasish Mohapatra Vs Chairman,Cesco.

Manorama Sethi Vs State and Ors.