Pradeep Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

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

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to admit & allow the Original Application,

(ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the impugned order of rejection under Annexure-15.

And/or

(iii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his absorption in the post of Light Vehicle Driver against existing vacancy or any other Class-III/IV suitable post under the respondent authority office keeping in view of his long continuance so also as per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court within a time bound period for the interest of justice.

(iv) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to pass any order (s) / direction(s) as deems fit and proper for the interest of justice”.

It is contended that the prayer of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization was rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner was engaged after the cut-off date fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dtd.15.05.1997 i.e. 12.04.1993.

4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that similar issue was before this Court in W.P.(C) (OAC) Nos.1568 of 2018 and 4573 of 2016. This Court vide its judgment dtd.02.05.2023 allowed the claim of such employees, who were also engaged after 12.04.1993.

4.2. It is also contended that the judgment passed by this Court on 02.05.2023 has been confirmed by the writ appellate court in W.A. No.2427/2023.

4.3. It is accordingly contended that the Writ Petition be disposed of in the light of the judgment so passed by this Court on 02.05.2023.

Even though learned Addl. Government Advocate basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that the Petitioner is not continuing in service and accordingly not entitled to get the benefit of regularization, but this Court finds from the document filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-19-Series that the claim of the Petitioner for his absorption has been recommended by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Samablpur-Opposite Party No.4 vide letter dtd.23.02.2021.

In view of such position, the stand taken by the Opposite Parties that the Petitioner is not in service is not acceptable.

Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while quashing the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner so made vide order dtd.27.02.2017 under Annexure-15, dispose of the writ petition in the light of the judgment passed on 02.05.2023 as cited (supra).

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

……………………….