Pruthviraj Parida Vs State of Odisha

4 . The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.02.03.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation from his initial date of engagement was rejected.

¶13

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was initially appointed as a

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

Jr. Clerk vide order dt.29.12.1986 on 89 days basis. Subsequently vide order dt.26.03.1987, Petitioner was so appointed with the condition that Petitioner will continue till the post is filled up by passed out candidates sponsored by the Collector of the District. However, while so continuing, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dt.25.01.1988.

¶16

5.1. Accordingly, challenging such termination, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1225 of 1994. The Tribunal vide order dt.17.04.1996, when directed the authority concerned to re-instate the Petitioner and to grant him the increment notionally for the entire period, Petitioner was re-instated vide order dt.15.07.1996 under Annexure-11, where he joined on 02.08.1996. It is also contended that the increment as due and admissible was also sanctioned vide order dt.04.06.2004 under Annexure-12, by taking the initial date of appointment as 12.01.1987.

¶17

5.2. It is contended that on the face of such continuance with the order of re-engagement passed under Anenxure-11 and sanction of the increment as due and admissible from 1.1.1989 onwards vide order at Annexure-12, Petitioner when was not regularised, on the face of such regularisation issued in favour of similarly situated employees vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1 prospectively,

¶18

Page 2 of 13

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1596 of 2015.

¶21

5.3. It is contended that vide order dt.17.08.2017 under Annexure-2, the Tribunal while disposing O.A. No.1596 of 2015 issued the following direction:

¶22

Accordingly, the O.A is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to extend the benefit of regularisation as has been done in the case of employees vide Annxure-12 with all consequential benefits and such action be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Tribunal directed to extend the benefit of regularisation as has been done in the case of employees vide Anexure-12 ( Annexure-1 to the present Writ Petition) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶24

5.5. It is contended that in terms of the order so passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-2, Petitioner was required to get the benefit of regularisation from the date similarly situated applicants got the said benefit vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1 of Opp. Party No.1. However, it is contended that such notification issued on 30.06.2014, was assailed by 2 (two) of the beneficiaries by filing OA. No.251(C ) of 2015 and 3828(C ) of 2014. The Tribunal vide order dt.23.02.2018 under Annexure-3, while quashing the order of regularisation so issued on

¶25

Page 3 of 13

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

30.06.2014, directed Opp. Party No.1 to reconsider and modify the orders of regularisation, by regularising the services of the applicants therein from their initial date of appointment and by extending all consequential benefits. Extract of the order passed under Annexure3 reads as follows:

¶28

Therefore, the impugned order vide Annexure-7 is not maintainable and is quashed to the extent of their regularization prospectively and consequently the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider and modifying the order vide Annexure- regularising the service of the applicants from the initial date of their appointment extending all the consequential benefits and such action as taken within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶29

5.6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that such order passed by the Tribunal on 23.02.2018 under Annexur-3 was assailed by the State by filing W.P.(C ) NO.15844 of 2020. However, the Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dt.09.09.2020 under Annexure-4. Challenge made to the said order before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.14274 of 2020 was also dismissed vide order dt.22.01.2021 under Annexure-5.

¶30

5.7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner taking into account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-2 and subsequent order passed under Anneuxre-3, so confirmed by this Court under Annexure-4 and by the Apex Court under Annexure-5, contended that in view of such order

¶31

Page 4 of 13

¶32

// 5 //

¶33

passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of regularisation from his initial date of appointment. However, when such benefit was not extended, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.41100 of 2021. This Court vide order dt.31.01.2022 under Annexure-6 when directed for consideration of his claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.17.08.2022 under Annexure-7.

¶34

5.8. After such rejection of the claim, Petitioner moved an application on 02.09.2022 under Annexure-8, with a prayer to extend the benefit as granted to 16 nos. of employees vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Anenxure-1 and the order passed by the Tribunal on 17.08.2017 under Annexure-2. When such claim of the Petitioner was not considered, he again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.29240 of 2022. This Court vide order dt.28.11.2022 under Annexure-9 when directed Opp. Party No.1 to consider the Petitioner’s claim so made in his representation dt.02.09.2022 under Annexure-8, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.02.09.2023 under Annexure-10.

¶35

5.9. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner taking into account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-2 contended that vide the said order, the Tribunal directed to extend the benefit

¶36

Page 5 of 13

¶37

// 6 //

¶38

as has been extended in favour of similarly situated 16 nos. of employees vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1. However, such benefit extended vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1, was again interfered with by the Tribunal in its order dt.23.02.2018 under Annexure-3. While interfering with the said order, the Tribunal held that the applicants therein will be entitled to get the benefit of regularisation from their initial date of appointment. The order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3 was not only confirmed by this Court vide order under Annexure-4, but also by the Apex Court under Annexure-5.

¶39

5.10. It is accordingly contender that in view of the nature of order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-2 and subsequent order passed by the selfsame Tribunal under Annexure-3, so confirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Petitioner in view of the order under Annexure-2, became entitled to get the benefit from his initial date of appointment. It is also contended that the order passed by the Tribunal has already been implemented vide Office order dt.08.10.2021(copy of the same produced in Court be kept on record).

¶40

5.11. It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation from the date similarly situated Jr. Clerks were regularised vide

¶41

Page 6 of 13

¶42

// 7 //

¶43

Notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1 though has been illegally rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-10, but Petitioner in view of the benefit extended to such 16 nos. of employees from their initial date of appointment, so admitted in the impugned order, is entitled to get similar benefit and this court by moulding the relief, may grant similar benefit. However, it is contended that Petitioner vide notification dt.08.03.2019 under Annexure-A/2 was regularised prospectively from the said date, which is not in compliance to order of the Tribunal under Annexure-2. Admission made in the impugned order reads as follows:

¶44

Whereas, the Petitioner in his representation dt.02.09.202 under Annexure-6 inter-alia has prayed for regularisation of his service from initial date of appointment in compliance to the order passed by Hon’ble OAT, High Court and Supreme Court in respect of other employees and as per order dt.17.08.2017 passed in OA No.1596 of 2015 wherein the Learned Tribunal had directed to extend the benefits of regularization in favour of the petitioner.

¶45

Whereas, the representation dt.02.09.2022 of the petitioner under Annexure-6, the writ petition and other relevant records available in the file have been perused and examined.

¶46

Whereas, the petitioner Sri Parida was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 89 days basis vide order No.11212 dated 29.12.1986 by Directorate of Employment, Odisha and later on, he was terminated from service vide order No.852 dated 25.01.1988 by DE, Odisha. Subsequently, in compliance to order dt. 17.04.1996 passed in O.A. No. 1225/1994, he was appointed afrosh temporarily as Jr. Clerk vide

¶47

Page 7 of 13

¶48

// 8 //

¶49

O/o No.6844 dt. 15.07.1996 of Directorate of Employment, Odisha.

¶50

The above appointment/engagement of the petitioner was done without following relevant recruitment rule i.e. Odisha Ministerial Service (Recruitment of Posts of Junior Clerk in the District Offices) Rules, 1985. Whereas, while the matters stood thus, in compliance to order passed in OA NO.458/2011, the services of 16 (sixteen) Jr. Clerks, working in different employment exchanges under the Directorate of Employment, Odisha were regularised prospectively vide erstwhile E & TE& T Dept. Notification No.3833 dated 30.06.2014 wherein the name of the Petitioner doesn’t find place.

¶51

Whereas, the petitioner filed OA No. 1596/2015 for direction to the respondent to regularize his service and to extend all consequential benefits. The Learned Tribunal vide Order No. 14 dated 17.08.2017 has observed that the appointment of the applicant cannot be said to be under protection of the Tribunal and hence the principle as laid down in the case of State of Karnataka vrs Uma Devi or State of Karnataka vrs M.L. Keshari is not applicable and directed to extend the benefits of regularization. In compliance to above order, the service of the petitioner was regularized prospectively vide Notification no.1496 dt.08.03.2019 after relaxation of Rule-4 of OMS Rules, 1985 in terms of Rule 14 of OMS Rules, 1985. Whereas, while the matter stood thus, other In Clerks filed O.A. No. 251 (C) of 2015 and O.A. No.3828 (C) of 2014 challenging the Notification dt for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment and 30.06.2014 regularizing their services prospectively with a further prayed sanction of all consequential benefits.

¶52

Page 8 of 13

¶53

// 9 //

¶54

The learned Tribunal heard both the cases together and disposed of the same in a common order dt. 23.02.2018. The Hon'ble Tribunal held the Notification dt. 30.06.2014 not maintainable and quashed the same to the extent of their regularization prospectively and consequently directed to reconsider and modify the Notification 3833 dt.30.06.2014 regularizing the services of the applicants from the initial date of their appointment extending all consequential benefits.

¶55

Whereas, the order dt. 23.02.2018 of Learned Tribunal has been confirmed by Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.15844 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.15846 of 2020 and subsequently by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 14274 of 2020 and 14230 of 2020 respectively. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, the service of the sixteen (16) Junior Clerks mentioned in Notification No. 3833 dt. 30.06.2014 were regularized from the initial date of appointments vide letter No. 4347 dt. 30.09.2021 and letter No. 2973 dt. 29.06.2022 respectively.

¶56

6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.2.

¶57

6.1. It is contended that the Tribunal vide order dt.17.08.2017 under Annexure-2, when directed the State authorities to extend similar benefit as has been extended vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1, vide Notification dt.08.03.2019 under Annexure-A/2, Petitioner was given the benefit of regularisation prospectively. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-2, and the benefit extended vide Notification dt.30.06.2014 under

¶58

Page 9 of 13

¶59

// 10 //

¶60

Annexure-1, Petitioner was rightly extended with the benefit of regularisation prospectively, vide notification dt.08.03.2019 under Annexure-A/2.

¶61

6.2. It is also contended that on the face of extension of the benefit in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the order under Annexure-2, Petitioner made further claim to get the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3, so confirmed by this Court under Annexure-4 and by the Apex Court under Annexure-5. Even though such claim of the Petitioner was initially rejected vide order dt.17.08.2022 under Annexure-7, but Petitioner instead of challenging the said order, again made a representation under Annexure-8 on 02.09.2022 for reconsideration of his claim and to extend the benefit of regularisation from his initial date of appointment. The same was again considered in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.29440 of 2022 and Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dt.02.03.2023 under Annexure-10.

¶62

6.3. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate accordingly contended that since benefit of the Order under Annexure-2 has already been extended in favour of the Petitioner by allowing him regularisation prospectively vide notification dt.08.03.2019 under Annexure-A/2, no further claim of the Petitioner is entertainable and the same has been rightly rejected.

¶63

Page 10 of 13

¶64

// 11 //

¶65

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Clerk on 29.12.1986 on 89 days basis. Even though Petitioner was terminated w.e.f 25.1.1988, but pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1225 of 1994, he was re-instated vide order dt.15.07.1996 under Annexure-11 and increment as due and admissible as on 1.1.1989 onwards was also released vide order dt.04.06.2004 under Annexure-12.

¶66

7.1. Claiming similar benefit of regularisation has been extended in favour of similarly situated employees vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1, Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.1596 of 2015. The Tribunal vide order dt.17.08.2017 under Annexure-2 while allowing the claim, directed the authorities to extend similar benefit as has been extended vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1. In terms of the said order, Petitioner though was extended with the benefit of regularisation, but it was extended prospectively from the date of issuance of the notification dt.08.03.2019 under Annexure-A/2, instead of the benefit extended vide notification dt.30.06.2014.

¶67

7.2. It is also found that benefit extended vide notification dt.30.06.2014 was assailed before the Tribunal in O.A No.251(C ) of 2015 and O.A. No.3828(C )

¶68

Page 11 of 13

¶69

// 12 //

¶70

of 2014. It is found that vide order dt.23.06.2015 under Annexure-3, the Tribunal while interfering with the benefit of regularisation extended vide notification dt.30.06.2014 prospectively, directed for extension of benefit in favour of the applicants therein from their initial date of appointment. Such order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3 was not only confirmed by this Court in its order under Annexure-4, but also by the Apex Court vide order under Annexure-5.

¶71

7.3. It is also found from the impugned order under Annexure-10 that the order passed by the Tribunal under Anexure-3 has been implemented by the Government and by allowing the benefit of regularisation in favour of 16 nos. of similarly situated employees from their initial date of appointment vide letter dt.30.09.2021 and 29.06.2022 respectively. However, claim of the Petitioner to get similar benefit of regularisation from his initial date of appointment was rejected vide order dt.17.08.2022 under Annexure-7. Petitioner when made a representation for reconsideration of his claim and this Court directed accordingly in its order under Annexure-9, but such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.03.03.2023 under Annexure-10.

¶72

7.4. Taking into account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-2 and the order passed under Annexure-3, so confirmed by this Court as well

¶73

Page 12 of 13

¶74

// 13 //

¶75

as by the Apex Court and the implementation of the same in respect of 16 nos. of similarly situated employees so admitted, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get similar benefit as has been allowed in favour of 16 nos. of similarly situated employees including the applicants in O.A. NO.251(C ) of 2015 and 3328(C ) of 2014 under Annexure-3.

¶76

7.5. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order dt.02.03.2023 so issued by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-10, and by moulding the relief, directs Opp. Party No.1 to extend the benefit of regularisation in favour of the Peittoner, from his initial date of appointment. This Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to pass a fresh order as directed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such extension of the benefit as directed, consequential follow-up action be taken to extend all service and financial benefits as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner within a further period of 4 (four) months.

¶77

7.6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶78

Signature Not Verified

¶79

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuts angitack ta Date: 25-Nov-2025 14:03:37

¶80

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶81

Page 13 of 13

Pruthviraj Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pruthviraj Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarada Prasad Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sanjaya Naik Vs State of Odisha

Raj Ku.Patel Vs State and Ors.

Tp Western Odisha Distribution Ltd. Burla Vs Appellate Authority Office of the Addl.Chief Engineer Cum Elect. Inspector, Rourkela

Dillip Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Sangram Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha