Allowed

State of Odisha v. Bhakta Bandhu Sahoo

Orissa HC18 Nov 2024WA/108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against a Single Judge's order directing regularization of a work-charge employee's service. The bench found the writ petition was disposed of without notice to show cause as required by Rule-9 of Chapter XV of the High Court rules, set aside the impugned order and restored the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; writ petition restored to original file for fresh adjudication.

State of Odisha Vs Bhakta Bandhu Sahoo — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 108 of 2024

¶3

State of Odisha and others

¶4

…. Appellants

¶5

Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Additional Government Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Bhakta Bandhu Sahoo …. Respondent

¶8

Mr. G.P. Jena, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No.

ORDER 18.11.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

The State of Odisha, in the present writ appeal has put to challenge an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21136 of 2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed with the following observation and direction:-

¶16

“4. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing as DLR and work charge employee under the Superintending Engineer, Head Works Division, Samal, Angul and completed 30 years of service in the meantime and even though his appointment is irregular he should be regularized in service in view of the judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L.Keshari (supra), as well as Amarkamti Rai v. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

5. In view of such position, the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to regularize the service of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.”

¶19

The writ petition was filed on 17.08.2022 and it was listed for admission for the first time on 30.08.2022. On the same day, the writ petition came to be disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶20

Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has raised various issues disputing the factual details as asserted in the writ petition based on which only the learned Single Judge granted the relief which the respondent had sought. He has submitted that apparently the State was not given any opportunity to file its response to the averments made in the writ petition. He has drawn our attention to Rule-9 of Chapter XV of the Rules of High Court of Orissa, 1948 to contend that the opposite parties in the writ petition ought to have been given an opportunity to show cause against the relief sought for by the respondent in the writ petition.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that taking into account the long period during which the respondent had served in work-charged establishment, the learned Single Judge rightly passed an order to regularize his service.

¶22

The settled legal principle that if law requires an authority to do something in a particular manner, that should be done in that manner alone or not at all, equally applies in a proceeding under

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

Article 226 of the Constitution of India also, particularly when the High Court has framed rules concerning the disposal of applications under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution. Chapter-XV of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa lays down the procedure for disposal of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and states in Rule-9 as under:-

¶25

“9. Unless the Court sees no sufficient cause to admit the application and rejects it, notice of the application shall be served on all parties to the proceedings to show cause by a date fixed and where the application relates to any proceedings in or before a Subordinate Court or authority and the object is either to compel such Court or any officer thereof or any authority to do and act in relation to such proceedings or to quash them or any order made therein, notice to show cause shall also be served on such Court or officer or authority, as the case may be, with directions to produce or cause production of the records of the proceeding along with its or his return. Every notice under this rule shall be accompanied by copies of the application and affidavit and annexures, if any .”

¶26

It is manifest on a plain reading of Rule-9 of Chapter-XV of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 that unless the court sees no sufficient cause to admit the application and rejects it, “notice of application is required to be served on all parties to the proceedings to show cause by a date fixed”. Unless the parties are afforded

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

opportunity to consider the pleadings in a writ petition and file response, if so required, no positive order granting relief can be passed.

¶29

In our considered view, the writ petition can be dismissed, in the light of Rule-9 of Chapter-XV of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, if no sufficient cause is found to admit the application. Otherwise, the parties to the proceeding are required to be given opportunity to show cause by a date fixed. Barring exceptional circumstances, the procedure prescribed under Rule-9 of ChapterXV of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa cannot be ignored.

¶30

On this solitary ground the impugned order passed by the learned single judge deserves interference. Accordingly, the order dated 30.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21136 of 2022 is set aside.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 21136 of 2022 is restored to its original file to be placed before the appropriate bench according to the assignment.

¶32

The writ appeal is allowed.

¶33

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

¶34

Chief Justice

¶35

(Savitri Ratho)

¶36

Judge

¶37

Arun Mishra Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-Cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Nov-2024 15:30:44

¶39

Page 4 of 4

State of Odisha v. Bhakta Bandhu Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Bhakta Bandhu Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sakrobotix Lab Pvt. Ltd. Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Satyasish Swain Vs Jaituna Bibi

Pashupati Jena Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Mahadev Behera

State of Odisha Vs Dr. Jadumani Nayak

Padmalochan Panda Vs Union of India