Disposed

Pravat R.Mohanty v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC7 Aug 2024WP(C)/10852/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Vice Chancellor to recommend relaxation of recruitment rules under Rule 34 to the Chancellor for regularization of non-teaching employees with over two decades of service, allowing them to continue in posts pending the decision within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Vice Chancellor to recommend rule relaxation to Chancellor within four weeks; Chancellor to decide within four weeks; petitioners to continue in posts during pendency.

Pravat R.Mohanty Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C). No. 10852 of 2013

¶3

(An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶4

---------------

¶5

Pravat R.Mohanty & Ors ...… Petitioners -VersusState of Odisha and Ors ...... Opposite Parties

¶6

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr. P.K.Rath, Sr. counsel With Mr. A.Behera, Advocate. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik Additional Government Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

7^th August, 2024

¶11

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners are non-teaching

¶12

employees of the Utkal University of Culture having been

¶13

engaged since 1999-2000 in various posts. Their grievance is

¶14

that despite such long service, they have not been

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

regularized. Several letters recommending their case to the Government for regularization are available on record. Ultimately by order dated 03.05.2013, the Government in Department of Tourism and Culture rejected the claim of the petitioners for regularization on the following ground:

¶17

“ Since the petitioners were appointed on consolidated remuneration basis without prior approval of Government, without following due recruitment procedures as prescribed in the Odisha Universities Recruitment and Promotion of Non-teaching Employees Rules, 1991, the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services ( For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)Act, 1975 and in violation of F.D.O.M. No. 31271 dt. 16.07.1999 the engagement of the petitioners is illegal and on pick and choose basis and as such their services cannot be regularized.”

¶18

Mr. P.K.Rath, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. A.Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding of the administrative department that the petitioners were not appointed following due selection procedure is factually incorrect inasmuch as the Vice Chancellor while recommending the case of the petitioners

¶19

for their regularization has time and again reiterated that the

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

petitioners were engaged following due selection process. Attention of this Court is drawn to letter of the Vice Chancellor dated 09.05.2024, enclosed as Annexure-I/3 to the counter affidavit filed by the university, wherein the following has inter alia been stated:

¶22

xxx “These 19 nos. of non-teaching employees were recruited by following due recruitment procedure and interview conducted by the then Vice Chancellor. The details of interview conducted are enclosed as Anexures-1 series. Subsequently Govt. in Tourism and Culture (Culture) Department sanctioned 18 nos. of non-teaching post vide letter No. 832/TC dated 28.02.2000 (Annexure-2) and subsequently 24 nos. of temporary non-teaching posts and 4 teaching posts vide letter No. 3032/TC dated 04.06.2001 (Annexure-3) which were extended up to 28.02.2015. Again, in the year 2016, Govt. in Culture Department sanctioned another 23 nos. of non-teaching posts vide letter No. 2993/TC dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure-10). These 19 nos. of non-teaching employees are continuing against these sanctioned posts.” Xxx

¶23

Obviously, there is some misunderstanding as regards the factual scenario. Be that as it may, this Court also finds that Rule 34 of the Odisha Universities Recruitment and Promotion of non-Teaching Employees Rules, 1992 confers power on the Chancellor to relax the provisions of the rules where it is considered necessary or expedient to do so in the

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

interest of the University and justice. Rule 34 reads as follows:

¶26

“Rule-34, When it is considered by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the University and justice, he may, by order, relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any case or class of cases or class of persons.”

¶27

Therefore, even assuming there is some irregularity in the initial selection of the petitioners, the fact that the petitioners have rendered service for more than two decades by now and that against sanctioned posts cannot be lost sight of.

¶28

This Court has in a plethora of judgments held that where the employees are engaged against sanctioned posts for long periods of time, a presumption arises that there is work available for them and therefore, there is a need to regularize their services. Moreover, as has already been referred to hereinbefore, the power of relaxation of the rules is available to be invoked by Chancellor.

¶29

Therefore, taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been rendering service to the institution for more than two decades against sanctioned posts, it would be iniquitous and unjust to simply throw them out of the employment on

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

technicalities rather ends of justice would be met if their services are considered for regularization by relaxing the relevant rules. This Court finds that the Vice Chancellor has time and again recommended the case of the petitioners favourably to the Government. There is however no recommendation made specifically to the Chancellor for relaxation of the rules.

¶32

Therefore, without keeping the writ petition pending, this Court directs the Vice Chancellor of the University to make necessary recommendation to the Chancellor for relaxation of the relevant provisions of 1999 Rules as envisaged under Rule 34 of the said rules. If such recommendation is made by the Vice Chancellor within four weeks from today, the Chancellor shall pass necessary orders within four weeks thereafter. In the event, the Chancellor takes a positive view that the provisions should be relaxed then necessary orders be passed directing the Vice Chancellor to move the Government accordingly. The whole exercise should be completed within four months from the date of recommendation made by the Vice Chancellor. It goes

¶33

Page 5 of 6

¶34

without saying that till a final decision is taken in the matter, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in their respective posts.

¶35