Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 311 (ORI)

State of Odisha v. Sudhanshu Kumar Das

2017-03-22

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State of Odisha assailing the order dated 11.9.2013 passed in O.A.No.732 of 2013 by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack as well as the order dated 25.6.2014 passed in M.P.(IP) No. 287 of 2014 directing compliance of the order dated 11.9.2013 passed in the above original application. 2. Brief facts of the applicant/opposite party no.1 is that he was working under DANIDA project from the year 1993 having been appointed as Field Investigator and till date he is continuing in the said post but his service has not been regularized under regular establishment compelled him to file original application before the Tribunal being O.A.No.2828(C) of 1997. Ground of challenge is that the Tribunal without appreciating the fact that the case of the petitioner is not coming under the parameter of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and others vrs. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 has came to finding that the applicant/opposite party no.1 deservers benefit as envisaged in the judgment, while on the other hand , order has been passed to consider case of the applicant/opposite party no.1 in view of the Supreme Court order. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that there is no difficulty for the State Government to consider the case of the applicant/opposite party no.1 on its own merit and as such he has prayed to modify that part of the order whereby and where under the Tribunal has came to finding that the applicant deserves benefit envisaged in the said judgment. While on the other hand, the applicant/opposite party no.1 has submitted that the case of the petitioner is coming under the parameter of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) and State of Karnataka and others vrs. M.L. Kesari and others (supra), hence the order passed by the Tribunal needs no interference. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) and State of Karnataka and others vrs. M.L. Kesari and others (supra), hence the order passed by the Tribunal needs no interference. He has further submitted that the petitioner is still continuing in service since 1993 which itself suggests that there requirement of the employee to work on that post and as such his case is fit to be regularized. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. We, on critical scrutiny of the order passed by the Tribunal, have found that the Tribunal on the one hand has come to definite finding that the case of the applicant/opposite party no.1 deserves benefit envisaged in the judgments in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) and State of Karnataka and others vrs. M.L. Kesari and others (supra) but relevant fact has not been examined and as such we thought it proper to modify the order of the tribunal to the extent that the State Authority will consider the case of the applicant/opposite party no.1 on its own merit and if they came to conclusion that the case of the petitioner is coming in the parameter of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) and State of Karnataka and others vrs. M.L. Kesari and others (supra), consequential relief shall be granted. It is made clear that the authority will take decision within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the extent as indicated above, the order passed by the Tribunal is modified. Since we have modified the order dated 11.9.2013 passed in O.A.No.732(C) of 2013 by the Tribunal, hence we are not going into the merits of the contempt petition. 6. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.