Disposed

Saikh Akbar Uddin v. the Secretary Health and Family Welfare Deptt.

Orissa HC10 Aug 2020WP(C)/15494/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for consideration of his case for regularization as a Pharmacist in a State Government institute. The Court found no case for mandamus but directed authorities to consider the petitioner's pending representation expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2020 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks.

Saikh Akbar Uddin Vs the Secretary Health and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 15494 of 2020

¶2

10.08.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr.P.K.Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bibhu Prasad Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

¶4

Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks for a direction for consideration of his case for regularization in the post of Pharmacist at Acharya Harihar Cancer Institute, Cuttack (for short, ‘Cancer Institute’).

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a qualified Pharmacist was inducted in the Cancer Institute to work as such on 01.12.2017 through an outsourcing agency. The State Government in the High Power Committee, vide its letter dated 14.05.2020 (Annexure-9), have taken a decision to take steps for regularization of paramedical staff working under General Healthcare and different Schemes, which was scheduled to be conducted on 15.05.2020. Petitioner apprehends that since he has been engaged through an outsourcing agency his case as Pharmacist may not be considered.

¶6

Although Mr.Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner brought attention of this Court to several orders of the authority of Cancer Institute directing the petitioner to work in different capacity

¶7

-2-

¶8

he could not produce any material to the effect that he has a right to be considered for regularization as Pharmacist. He, however, submits that the petitioner has made a representation dated 15.06.2020 under Annexure-10 to the opposite parties for his regularization and prays for a direction for early disposal of the said representation and consideration of his case for regularization.

¶9

Mr.Tripathy, learned AGA submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as no direction can be issued against the outsourcing agency, which is a private body and employer of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has not made out any case for regularization. He has not yet completed the contractual service of six years for being considered for regularization. Therefore, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has not made out any case for issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider his case for regularization. He, however, having made a representation dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure-10) to different authorities under the Health and Family Welfare Department, which are stated to be pending, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner, disposes of the Writ Petition with an observation that the authorities may

¶11

-3-

¶12

consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure-10) on its own merit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court, which shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶13

……………………….. K.R.Mohapatra, J.

¶14

ss J.

Saikh Akbar Uddin v. the Secretary Health and Family Welfare Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saikh Akbar Uddin v. the Secretary Health and Family Welfare Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Naik Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Kumar Rana Vs the State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Biswal Vs the State of Odisha

Prahallad Dikshit Vs State of Odisha

Dr.Pratap Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha

Benudhar Moharana Vs State of Odisha