Disposed

Purna Chandra Maharana v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Feb 2023WPC(OAC)/140/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization in a Driver post vacant since 2007 and decide within three months, considering relevant Apex Court precedents on daily wage absorption.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Opposite Party No. 4 to take a lawful decision on the Petitioner's claim for regularization and grant consequential service benefits within three months from the date of receipt of th

Purna Chandra Maharana Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C)(OAC) No.140 of 2018

¶3

Purna Chandra Maharana

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

01.02.2023

Order No

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶14

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶15

“a) To direct the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the Applicant and regularize his services in the post of Driver lying vacant in Harabhanga Block of Boudh District and grant consequential service benefits as due admissible to him.

¶16

b) Pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as would be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶17

c) And for this act of kindness, the Applicant shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶18

4. It is contended that the Petitioner was initially engaged as a Driver on daily wage basis vide office order issued by the O.P. No. 4 on 19.05.2007. It is also contended that since 19.05.2007 the Petitioner is continuing on daily wage basis. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the post in which the Petitioner is continuing is a sanctioned post and the said fact is reflected in the

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

letter issued by the B.D.O. to the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh on 06.05.2014 under Annexure-7.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though the Petitioner is continuing on daily wage basis as against a sanctioned post for the last 14 years, but no step has been taken by the Authority to absorb his as against the said post. Accordingly, it is contended that necessary direction be issued to the O.P. No. 4 to take effective step for absorption for the Petitioner as against the post of Driver in which he is continuing since 2007.

¶22

6. Even though no counter has been filed, but Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC contended that the Petitioner has been appointed by the BDO on his own without taking prior permission of the Authority and since the Petitioner was engaged not by facing any selection process, he is not eligible and entitled for his absorption in the regular establishment.

¶23

7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the fact that the Petitioner is continuing as against a sanctioned post as it revealed from Annexure-7 w.e.f.19.05.2007 and in the meantime more than 15 years have passed, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs the O.P. No. 4 to take a lawful decision on the Petitioner’s claim for his regularization as against the said post within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. The order so passed be communicated to the Petitioner. However, while considering the claim of the Petitioner, Opp. Party No. 4 shall take into consideration the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

State of Punjab & Others, 2013 (14) SCC 65 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 .

¶27

8. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶29

Sneha

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Purna Chandra Maharana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purna Chandra Maharana 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

Premanjali Behura Vs Prof. Dr. Nirmal Chandra Mohapatra, Director, Regional Spinal Injury Centre

Sudhir Chandra Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Gayatri Mohanty @ Sahoo Vs Ranjit Mohanty

Gostha Bihari Roul Vs D.F.O.Rajnagar

Manoranjan Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Kanhu Charan Karna Vs State of Odisha