A. Dillip Kumar Reddy Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed in the Writ Petition.

¶17

Mr. Biswambar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner served as DLR employee under the General Electrical Division for more than twenty five years. He also submitted that on earlier occasion, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11048 of 2022 seeking regularization of his service, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.07.2023 with the following observation:-

¶18

“*** 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and further examining the background facts of the present case and taking into consideration the judgment by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sk. Saifur Raheman & Others Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided on 02.05.2023 (WPC(OAC) No.1568 of 2018), this Court is of the considered view that that order under Annexure-4 rejecting

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

the prayer of the petitioner needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. However, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with a copy of the judgment dated 02.05.2023 in Sk. Saifur Raheman ’s case (supra) and certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. In the event, the Petitioner approaches with a certified copy of this order before the Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite party No.1 shall do well to consider the same keeping in view the ratio laid down by this Court in Sk. Saifur Raheman ’s case (supra) and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1. It is needless to mention here that in the event the authorities come to a conclusion that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the persons in the cases of WPC(OAC) No.1568 of 2018 and WPC(OAC) 4573 of 2016, then similar benefits be extended to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible.”

¶21

It is pointed out that Government of Odisha in Works Department while considering the case of the Petitioner, pursuant to the direction of this Court, rejected the claim of the Petitioner vide order dated 13.11.2023, with the following observation:-

¶22

“Now, therefore, in pursuance of the orders of Hon’ble High Court, Orissa passed in W.P.(C) No.10740 of 2022 vide order dated 17.07.2023, the matter was examined with reference to relevant circular/rule/executive instruction in force as well as the cited case law and found that the prayer of the petitioner for regularization is not sustainable at this stage and the same is disposed of accordingly.”

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that though the Government of Odisha in Works Department rejected the claim of the Petitioner vide order dated 13.11.2023 with the notion that the State has filed writ appeal being W.A. No.2427 of 2023 against

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC(OAC) No.1568 of 2018 without taking note of the fact that the said writ appeal had already been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 under Annexure-7.

¶26

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties has not raised any objection with regard to the position of outcome of the writ appeal and requested for reconsideration of the matter by the appropriate authority.

¶27

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 13.11.2023 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government in Works Department cannot sustain in the eye of law in view of the order dated 17.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.11048 of 2022. Hence, the said order is hereby quashed and now the case of the Petitioner is required to be reconsidered by the Principal Secretary to Government in Works Department. In such view of the matter, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1-Principal Secretary to Government in Works Department to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the order dated 17.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.11048 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶28