Basanta Kumar Routray Vs Union of India

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.7986 of 2025

¶2

Basanta Kumar Routray

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Abhaya Kumar Sharma

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) Union Of India .....

¶7

Opposite Parties

¶8

National Horticulture Board Represented By Adv. – 3) Joint Director, National Mr. P.K.Parhi, D.S.G.I. Horticulture Board along with Mr. S.Sethi, 4) Dy Director, National Horticulture C.G.C. Board, Ministry Fo Agriculture And Farmers Welfare

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

03.04.2025

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. P.K.Parhi, learned D.S.G.I. along with Mr. S.Sethi learned C.G.C. for the Opposite Parties.

¶16

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶17

“The petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue 'Rule Nisi' calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the Petitioner will not be regularized and be paid equal salary and allowances at par with the employees of regular status, if the Opposite Parties fail to show

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule, may be made absolute for the ends of justice.

¶20

Be further pleased to pass such other appropriate writ/writs/order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the particular circumstances of the case for the ends of justice.”

¶21

In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has submitted representation before Joint Director (Personnel), Office of the Managing Director, National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Government of India, Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-12. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-12 within a stipulated period of time.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.3, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-12 within a period of three months from the date of production of

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-12 by passing a speaking and reasoned order take into consideration the law laid down in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , 2006(4) SCC 1 as well as in State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Keshari and others , 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982 , in Jaggo v . Union of India and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, in Sripal and another V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31^st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024) . The decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be also communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.