Allowed

Arabinda Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Aug 2020WP(C)/21243/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the opposite parties to regularize the petitioners' services and grant consequential benefits within four months under the Umadevi and M.L. Kesari ratio, based on their eight years of monthly remuneration service. It also ordered maintenance of status quo pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direct the opposite parties to consider and regularize petitioners' services within four months, grant consequential benefits, and maintain status quo pending compliance.

Arabinda Panda Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

C.M.P. No.1360 of 2015 W.P.(C). No.21243 of 2020

¶2

2 28.08.2020

¶3

This matter is taken up through Video conferencing. Heard Sri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Stateopposite parties.

¶4

The petitioners have filed this application seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to regularize their services taking into account their continuous service of more than 8 years, as has been done in favour of the other similarly situated persons as per Government Circular and in terms of the principle decided in Secretary State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs . M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were engaged on monthly remuneration basis. They have already rendered more than 8 years of service under the opposite parties and therefore, seeks for regularization of services in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006.

¶6

Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioners have rendered service for more than 8 years on monthly remuneration basis. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio decided in the cases cited supra. In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of this Writ Petition directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners and regularize their services keeping in view the judgment in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and

¶7

-2-

¶8

others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006 and also the resolution of the G.A. Department dated 17.09.2013, within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the petitioners and grant consequential service benefits as due admissible to them.

¶9

It is further directed that in the event the petitioners are still continuing in their service, status quo as on today in respect of the services of the petitioners shall be maintained till a decision is taken in the matter by the opposite parties in terms of the above direction.

¶10

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioners may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶11

��. Biswanath Rath, J.

¶12

sks

Arabinda Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arabinda Panda v. State of Odisha

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

V.Narasingha Rao Vs Addl.Dist. Magist.

Kaniz Fateema Begum Vs a.D.M.,Cuttack

Banshidhar Palita Vs Sub-Collector,Bhadra

Bikartan Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Anantaram Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Manash Ranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha