Allowed

Samaru Dandasena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Sept 2021WP(C)/27498/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed a writ petition filed by an employee seeking regularization of service. Relying on the Umadevi principle, the court held that the long-continued irregular appointment without interim court orders mandates regularization.

What did the court decide?

The opposite parties are directed to regularize the petitioner's service within three months from the date of this order.

Samaru Dandasena Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.27498 of 2021

¶3

Samaru Dandasena

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.K. Rout, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

….. Opposite parties State Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶11

ORDER

¶12

14.09.2021

¶13

Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The petitioner has filed this application seeking

¶17

direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service taking into account his continuous service, as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner states

¶19

that the petitioner has been continuing as a DLR employee under the opposite parties with effect from 01.04.1997, 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 :

¶20

“7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against

¶21

‘regularization’ enunciated in Umadevi if the following conditions are fulfilled: (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 him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (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.

¶22

In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶26

(DR. B.R. SARANGI,J.)

¶27

A.K.Rana

Samaru Dandasena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samaru Dandasena 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

Arjun Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Rashmiranjan Swain Vs State of Odisha

Dhiren Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Rajani Kanta Das Vs State of Odisha

Saraswati Naik Vs Samirkanta Adhikari

Sanyasi Swain Vs Anu Garg, IAS