In W.P.(C) No.22987 of 2021, the Orissa High Court directed the State of Odisha to regularize the petitioner's irregular DLR service within three months, invoking Umadevi exceptions due to over 23 years of continuous work in a sanctioned post.
Directing opposite parties to regularize petitioner's service within three months from date of order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22987 of 2021
Thakur Sahu
Petitioner Mr. P.K. Rout, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others
Opposite parties State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
10.08.2021
Order No.
02
The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service taking into account his continuous service, as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner has been continuing as a DLR employee under the opposite parties with effect from 01.11.1997, but till date he has not been regularized, although more than 23 years have passed in the meantime. 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. M.L.Keshari and others , 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982, wherein in paragraph 7 the apex Court has held as follows :
appointments are considered to be irregular.
In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing as DLR employee and completed 23 years of service in the meantime and even though his appointment is irregular, he should be regularized in service in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L.Keshari (supra), as well as Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and others , (2015) 8 SCC 265.
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.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Ashok
(DR. B.R. SARANGI,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner with 23 years of irregular service should be regularized in a sanctioned post.
Whether the exception to general principles against regularization applies to employees serving more than 10 years in duly sanctioned posts.
Whether opposite parties are directed to regularize petitioner's service within three months from date of order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka v. UmadeviRelied on¶18
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Keshari and othersRelied on¶18
State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Keshari and others, 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982
Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and othersRelied on¶21
Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265 · Who else cites this
Thakur Sahu
State of Odisha
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
