Jamuna Digal Vs State of Orissa

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶16

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

¶17

“It is therefore, prayed that your Lordships be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or in any other appropriate nature of writ (s) as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the prayer made hereunder shall not be allowed, and if no/insufficient cause is shown, the said rule be made absolute by issuing writ(s) in the nature of The Opp.

¶18

Page 1 of 5.

¶19

Parties be directed to regularize the services of the present petitioner against the post of Peon presently held by him on completion 06 years of contractual service in the said post with all other consequential service and financial benefits since the similarly situated persons have availed the same benefits at Annexure-4 within a stipulated period in the interest of justice.

¶20

Further be pleased to pass such other writ (s)/order (s) as may deem just and proper.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.09.2009, the Petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Peon. On being selected, the Petitioner was issued with the engagement order dated 31.08.2010 at Annexure-2. Pursuant to such engagement, the Petitioner joined in service by submitting a joining report on 06.10.2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner continued to discharge his duty as a Peon.

¶22

While this was the position, the SC & ST Development Department, Govt. of Odisha, issued an office order dated 05.12.2017 to regularise the service of many similarly situated persons, however the case of the Petitioner and similarly situated other persons were not considered by the government. As a result of which the Petitioner was compelled to approach the Competent Authority for consideration of his case for regularisation of his service. Since the administrative authority did not pay any give to the grievance of the present Petitioner, the Petitioner was compelled to approach the Odisha Administrative Tribunal initially by filing O.A. No.289(C) of

¶23

Page 2 of 5.

¶24

2018 which was subsequently transferred to this Court on the abolition of the learned OAT. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2022 dispose of the WPC(OAC) No.289 of 2018, filed by the Petitioner, with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for absorption of his service against a regularised post within three months. Despite such order, no steps were taken as a result of which the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing CONTC No.2382 of 2023 which was also disposed of vide order dated 05.05.2023 granting further four weeks’ time to the Opposite Parties to implement the order. Despite such order, the Opposite Parties did not comply with the earlier direction which has compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court again by filing the present writ application.

¶25

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the order dated 12.05.2023 at Annexure10 submitted before this Court that many similarly situated persons who are initially appointed on temporary basis have been regularised against regularly established post including one Sri Judhistir Pradhan. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the service of the Petitioner should have been regularised against a vacant regular established post of peon. Since no steps in that regard have been taken as of yet, being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶26

Page 3 of 5.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on perusal of the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto, it appears that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2022 has already directed to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner. In the event the case of the Petitioner has not been considered in terms of order dated 09.09.2022 as directed by this Court earlier, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the fact that the similarly situated persons have already been regularised as per order dated 12.05.2023 at Annexure-10, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner for absorption/regularisation of his service against a regularly established post within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the grievance of the Petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Such final order be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of passing such order.

¶29

Page 4 of 5.

¶30

Rubi

¶31