Dismissed¶37

Parakhita Prusty v. the State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 May 2024WP(C)/15603/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of daily-wage DLR sweeper; Odisha High Court; CDMO Khurda; PHC Podadiha / CHC Botalama; Rogi Kalyan Samiti outsourcing decision 09.05.2022; O.A. No.743(C)/2018 Tribunal direction; communication dated 06.10.2018; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the submissions made on behalf of both parties and the factual scenario of the case, the Court found no plausible ground to entertain the Petitioner's prayer for regularization of his services. ¶36

Parakhita Prusty Vs the State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15603 of 2020

¶3

Parakhita Prusty …. Petitioner(s)

¶4

Mr. Bijaya Kumar Parida (2), Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

The State of Orissa & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.

ORDER

02.05.2024

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

2 . In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner being a DLR employee/Sweeper, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party No.3/the Chief District Medical Officer (CDMO), Khurda for regularizing his services.

¶15

Apart from the above prayer, the Petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 06.10.2018 made by the Chief District Medical & Public Health Officer, Khordha.

¶16

3. Factual scenario of the case as well as submissions on behalf of the Petitioner and Opposite Parties/State in brevity remains:-

¶17

(i) The Petitioner being a DLR employee, is working as a Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-May-2024 17:39:59

¶19

Sweeper in the Office of the Medical Officer, PHC (N), Po da diha under the control of the Opposite Party No.3.

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

(ii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Government of Odisha vide its letter No.MS-III-A-25/904394/H dated 06.02.1991 and letter No.30536/H dated 13.08.1991 instructed the CDMOs for engagement of part time Sweepers in the PHCs/CHCs on daily wage basis. It was categorically stated in the said letter that the said appointment would be made on temporary basis with remuneration of Rs.25/- per day. It was also stated therein that the services of the DLR employees would be terminated from time to time after a period of 89 days.

¶22

(iii) By virtue of the said letter the Petitioner on 07.03.1994 was appointed as a part time Sweeper on daily wage basis for a period of 89 days with remuneration of Rs.25/- per day. His service period has been extended from time to time till today.

¶23

(iv) At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner had been continuing as against an existing regular vacancy, he had made several representations to the authority concerned for regularization of his services in the post of Sweeper.

¶24

(v) He further submits that since the services of the Petitioner was not regularized despite his repeated

¶25

representations, the Petitioner on 30.07.2018 had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA approached the learned Tribunal through O.A. No.743(C)/ Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-May-2024 17:39:59 20 18 and the learned Tribunal upon hearing the parties concerned disposed of the said O.A. with a direction to the

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

Opposite Party No.3 therein to consider the grievance of the Petitioner by treating the O.A. as a representation at the instance of the Petitioner.

¶28

(vi) Thereafter, upon receiving the order of the learned Tribunal the Opposite Party No.3 rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the premises that the Petitioner does not come within the purview of the rules/guidelines of the Government relating to the regularization of the services of the employees. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶29

(vii) Challenging the said action of the Opposite Party No.3 learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner has been continuing in the post of Sweeper for last 27 years, his services deserves to be regularized. He, accordingly, prays for allowing this Writ Petition.

¶30

(viii) In his opposition, learned counsel for the State on instruction submits that since the son of the present Petitioner is continuing in the same post and the Petitioner does not come to work, his claim for salary cannot be acceded to.

¶31

(ix) Drawing the attention of this Court to instructions received from the competent authority, learned counsel for the State further contends that as per the decision of the

¶32

Governing Body, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, PHC Podadiha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA under the CHC Botalama, Khordha dated 09.05.2022, the Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-May-2024 17:39:59 Pe tit ioner was disengaged from his services as the work of sweeping and cleaning of the hospital was being done by

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

the sanitary workers engaged through some outsourcing agency.

¶35

(x) He further submits that since the Petitioner was working as a Sweeper on daily wage basis and there is no regular post available to absorb the Petitioner, the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his services cannot also be acceded to. He also submits that the appointment of the Petitioner was also made on temporary basis. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶36

4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court does not find any plausible ground to entertain the prayer of the present Petitioner.

¶37

5. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶38

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶39

Ayaskanta

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-May-2024 17:39:59

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Parakhita Prusty v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parakhita Prusty v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Vs Chairperson,Pla

Trinath Kendu Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Mahapatra Vs Regional Manager, Rbi, Bbsr

Bright Vincom Pvt.Lt Vs Jagadamba Minerals

Rakesh Sugar Company Vs M/S.Laxmipathi Balaji Sugar and Distilleries Pvt.Ltd.

Hadubandhu Nayak Vs the Branch Manager, Sbi, Ganjam