Disposed

Madhusudan Bhasra v. Sate of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Mar 2023WP(C)/7057/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Odisha directed the State to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization as an Additional Collection Peon within three months. The Court cited Supreme Court precedents to order the authorities to absorb the petitioner into the regular establishment following a representation.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization and absorb him in the regular establishment within three months of receipt of representation.

Madhusudan Bhasra Vs Sate of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7057 of 2023

¶3

Madhusudan Bhasra …. Petitioner
Mr. B. R. Barik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. .
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
21.03. 2023
Order No
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶4

3. The Petitioner in this case has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:

¶5

“(i) admit the writ petition.

¶6

(ii) call for the records.

¶7

(iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties as to why the Petitioner shall not be absorbed as Addl. Collection Peon in the regular

¶8

// 2 //

¶9

establishment as per the recommendation letter under Annexure-28 pursuant to the letter under Annexure-25 & 26 and the consequential service benefits shall not be granted within a specified time.

¶10

(iv) If the Opp.Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in directing the Opp.Parties to absorb the Petitioner as Addl. Collection Peon in regular establishment as per the recommendation letter (Annexure-28) pursuant to the letter (Annexure-25 and 26) and to release all consequential service benefits within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

¶11

4. It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Additional Collection Peon with regular scale of pay and posted to different Tahasils coming under Bargarh district. It is also submitted that pursuant to such appointment as Additional Collection Peon, the Petitioner was not only allowed to continue on regular basis but also proposals were mooted for his absorption in the regular establishment at different point of time. It is also submitted that in spite of such action taken for his absorption, but no final order was passed in absorbing them in the regular establishment. It is accordingly submitted that because of such in-action on the part of the Opp. Parties, the Petitioner in spite of long continuance is continuing as Additional Collection Peon in different Tahasils on temporary basis.

¶12

// 3 //

¶13

5. It is submitted that during pendency of this matter Govt. in Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Odisha vide Communication No. RDM-LRLGEC-COMM00001-2017/2738/R & DM, dtd. 19.04.2017 has directed all the Collectors to furnish action taken report on the issue pertaining to regularization of services of Addl. Collection Peons. But it is pertinent to mention that in spite of such communication issued by the Govt. on 19.04.2017 no further action was taken in furnishing the report and consequential regularization of service of the Petitioner.

¶14

6. It is also submitted by Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the Order passed by the learned Tribunal on 10.02.2012 in O.A. No.950 of 2000 persons similarly situated have been regularized in the district of Jharsuguda. But due to the in action on the part of the Opp. Party No.2, the Petitioner is continuing as Additional Collection Peon without getting the benefit of regularization. Accordingly, Mr. Barik prayed for interference of this Court and to issue necessary direction as prayed for.

¶15

7. Mr. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Petitioner is continuing as Additional Collection Peon with regular scale of pay and in due course of time his case will be considered for regularization. Since no final decisions have been taken in terms of the communication issued by the Govt. of Revenue & Disaster Management Department on 19.04.2017, the Petitioner have to wait for his case to be considered by the Govt.

¶16

8. Considering such submission made by Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Additional

¶17

// 4 //

¶18

Government Advocate, this Court permits the Petitioner to make a detailed representation before O.P. Nos.2 & 3 ventilating his grievance within a period of 3 (three) weeks hence.

¶19

9. It is observed that if any such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, O.P Nos.2 & 3 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of said representation, taking into consideration the recommendation made vide communication dtd.19.04.2017 and orders of regularization, if any passed in terms of order dtd.10.02.2012 in O.A. No.950 of 2000 by the Collector, Jharsuguda.

¶20

10. It is also observed that while taking such decision, O.P. Nos.2 & 3 shall also follow the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), ( 2006) 4 SCC-1 , State of Karnatak vs. M.L.Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , Nihal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others , 2013 (14) SCC 65 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 . Since the Petitioner is continuing for around 31 years as Additional Collection Peon on temporary basis, his claim for regularization, as per the considered view of this Court, comes within the parameter issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, it is directed that the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 shall take effective steps and consider the claim of the Petitioner for his absorption in the regular establishment by following the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited (supra) and the absorption in the district of Jharsuguda as indicated hereinabove. It is directed that the entire exercise shall be

¶21

// 5 //

¶22

completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of representation to be made by the Petitioner. The order so passed be also communicated to the Petitioner.

¶23

11. With the aforesaid observation and direction the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶24

12. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per rules.

¶25

(A.K.Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS

Madhusudan Bhasra v. Sate of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudan Bhasra v. Sate 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

Susama Patra Vs State and Ors.

Umakanta Sahoo Vs State and Ors.

Shibani Thakur Vs Sambalpur University

N.Amulu Vs O.I.Co.Ltd and Anr.

Dr. Tapa Prakash Behera Vs State of Odisha

Mahendra Kumar Jena Vs Union of India