Orissa High Court
Afr Patitapaban Dutta Dash And Others vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 9 September, 2021
Author: B.R.Sarangi
Bench: B.R.Sarangi
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 19951 OF 2020
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------
AFR Patitapaban Dutta Dash and others ..... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ..... Opp. Parties For Petitioners : M/s. B.S. Tripathy-1, A. Tripathy & A. Sahoo, Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. H.M. Dhal, Addl. Government Advocate P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI Date of hearing : 02.09.2021 :: Date of judgment: 09.09.2021 DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioners, who are working as Data Entry Operators in various Tahasils of Cuttack district, have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to issue a formal letter of Page 1 of 50 regularization on completion of six years of contractual service in the scale of pay of PB-1 Rs.5200-20200/- + Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- with usual allowance admissible from time to time, as per GA Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 under Annexure-10 read with the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of Karnataka v. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 as well as the order dated 07.08.2020 of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17937 of 2020 (Susanta Sethi vs. State of Odisha & Ors.) in the same manner as has been allowed to similarly situated contractual Data Entry Operators in Annexure-11 series, by making a declaration that the decision of the Government taken on 16.03.2020 in Annexure-17 as well as Finance Department Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2020 in Annexure-19 have no application to the present context.Page 2 of 50
2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide letter dated 24.11.2006 conveyed the sanction and creation of 600 posts of Data Entry Operators-cum-Assistants to be engaged in different districts by the Collectors to render assistance for preparation and distribution of Land Pass Books for a period of six months with a remuneration of Rs.4000/- per month as per the eligibility criteria and the manner prescribed therein. So far as the Cuttack district is concerned, the number of Data Entry Operators-cum-Assistants was prescribed as 48.
2.1 In order to fill up such posts, an advertisement was issued in newspaper and through notice in District Office, Cuttack and request was made to the District Employment Exchange, Cuttack to sponsor the names of candidates having Graduation / Post Graduation with DCA /PGDCA qualification for the Page 3 of 50 purpose of being shortlisted for being appointed as Data Entry Operators-cum-Assistants in various Tahasils of Cuttack district. Consequentially, the petitioners, along with 150 other candidates, were shortlisted and they were asked to appear in the written test. Thereafter, a computer test was held on 31.01.2008 in the Conference Hall of the Collectorate, Cuttack by issuing call letters to the individual candidates on 24.01.2008 by the ADM, Cuttack -cum- Vice Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, Cuttack. By following due procedure of selection, the petitioners were selected and also appointed as Data Entry Operators-cum-Assistants in various Tahasils of Cuttack district. Though they were initially appointed for a period of six months, but they were allowed to continue by extending the period from time to time and are continuing till date. As such, they have already been allowed grade pay of Rs.1900/- per month w.e.f. 12.08.2014, vide letter dated 21.01.2015, and also Page 4 of 50 allowed the enhanced consolidated remuneration by revising the same to Rs.8,880/-, which was inclusive of ESI/EPF dues of the employer share w.e.f. 01.09.2017. 2.2 The opposite party no.1, vide letter dated 03.05.2012, communicated the copy of the minutes of meeting recording the decision taken by the Chief Secretary on 28.04.2012 on the issue of regularization of contractual Data Entry Operators engaged in Tahasils, where the following decisions were taken.
"(i) Data Entry Operators engaged on contractual basis in Tahasils should continue and should not be disengaged till a decision regarding regularization is finalized.
(ii) Govt. is contemplating to frame policy on regularization of contractual Data Entry Operators in various Departments.
(iii) The Policy so framed shall be applicable to those Data Entry Operators."
2.3. Accordingly, the Government of Odisha promulgated a policy for regularization of services of existing contractual Group-C and Group-D employees working under the State Government vide GA Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013. It has been Page 5 of 50 stated that for regular appointment, a gradation list of such contractual employees shall be prepared by the appointing authority on the basis of their date of appointment and regular appointment of those categories of contractual employees shall be made on the date of completion of six years of service or from the date of publication of the said resolution, whichever is later, in the order in which their names appear in the gradation list prepared under Para-1 of such policy. The period of six years shall be counted from the date of contractual appointment prior to publication of the said resolution. In para-2 thereof, it was further provided that on the date of satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service or from the date of publication of such resolution, whichever is later, they shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed and a formal order of regular appointment shall be issued by the appointing authority. Consequently, upon regular appointment under the contractual post, if any, shall Page 6 of 50 get re-converted to regular sanction post. In case the person concerned has crossed the upper age limit, the appointing authority shall allow relaxation of upper age limit. Subsequently, the Government of Odisha in G.A. Department issued another resolution on 16.01.2014 expressly clarifying resolution of the GA Department dated 17.09.2013 that proposal for regularization shall be considered and approved by the High Power Committee to be constituted under the chairmanship of the concerned department.
2.4 Basing upon such resolution dated 17.09.2013, various other departments of the Government have already regularized Data Entry Operators in their respective posts in PB-I Rs.5200- 20000/- with GP Rs.1900/- and/or Rs.2400/-. Such benefit has been extended pursuant to order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the case of Jatin Kumar Das vs. State of Odisha in O.A. No. 2172 (C) of 2015 and batch, which Page 7 of 50 has been upheld by this Court on 10.05.2018 in WP(C) No. 6661 of 2018 and also by the apex Court on 06.08.2018 by dismissing SLP No. 18642 of 2018 preferred by the State of Odisha. Consequent upon the judgment of the tribunal, the Data Entry Operators working in the CT organization, Higher Education Department, Department of Tourism & Culture, Dean & Principal, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and office of the Collector, Cuttack have been regularized vide Annexure-11 series. 2.5 In the meantime, though G.A. Department formulated Odisha Group-„C‟ and Group- „D‟ Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, but the same have no application to the cases covered under G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013. But while granting extension to the contractual appointments of the petitioners for a further period of six months, i.e. up to 28.02.2020, the opposite party no.1, vide letter dated 26.09.2019, made a stipulation Page 8 of 50 that "or till completion of the process of recruitment and appointment against 692 posts of Junior Clerks created for Tahasils and Sub-Division Officers, whichever is earlier."
2.6 In the meantime, vide G.O. No. 6289 of 24.02.2016 the opposite party no.1 had conveyed sanction for creation of 692 posts of Junior Clerks in 317 Tahasils of the State in lieu of abolition of equal number of vacant posts in Survey & Settlement organization of Board of Revenue with clear indication that the posts would be created and would be required for regularization for DEOs engaged on contractual basis in all the Tahasils of the State. All the petitioners have completed six years of contractual services. Therefore, their services are deemed to be regularized by issuing formal letters of regularization. But the opposite parties having not taken any steps for communication of the formal letters of regularization, the petitioners approached the Odisha Administrative Page 9 of 50 Tribunal by filing Original Applications and the petitioner no.1, who was also petitioner no.1 in O.A. No.554 (C) of 2018 filed W.P.(C) No. 3678 of 2020, which was disposed of on 03.02.2020 stating inter alia "considering the submissions made and looking into consideration the development through Annexure-5 this Court finds Annexure-7 should be processed to accommodate the persons for whom the vacancies have been arisen, vide Annexure-5." In view of such order of this Court, the petitioner no.1 submitted representation before the Collector and District Magistrate, Cuttack with a prayer for compliance of the direction of this Court and for consideration of their cases for regularization by issuing a formal order of regularization as per GA Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 on completion of six years of contractual service against the sanctioned posts they were continuing. By order dated 19.05.2020, the opposite party no.1 allowed extension of term of contractual Page 10 of 50 appointment of the 600 DEOs working in different Tahsils in the State, including the present petitioners, on the same terms and conditions as indicated earlier for a further period of six months from 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2020.
2.7 Meanwhile, Finance Department took a decision on austerity measure due to Covid-19 and issued office memorandum dated 07.07.2020 stating that the persons who are engaged on outsourcing basis, are to be paid their entitlement as per the terms and conditions of the engagement till contract period ends. If the contract period ends within the lock down period, then the entitlement to be paid till the end of the contract period. Thereby, instead of regularizing the services by issuing a formal letter of regularization in terms of resolution dated 17.09.2013, extension was given to the petitioners, who are rendering service as Data Entry Operators on contractual basis and have already completed more than six years of service. Page 11 of 50 Therefore, they approached this Court by filing this writ petition, which was disposed of, vide order dated 20.08.2020, which runs as follows:
"This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Sri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.
The petitioners have filed this application seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to regularize their services taking into account their continuous service of more than 8 years, as has been done in favour of the other similarly situated persons as per Government Circular and in terms of the principle decided in Secretary State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were engaged on monthly remuneration basis. They have already rendered more than 8 years of service under the opposite parties and therefore, seeks for regularization of services in view of the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006.
Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioners have rendered service for more than 8 years on monthly remuneration basis. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio decided in the cases cited Page 12 of 50 supra. In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of this Writ Petition directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners and regularize their services keeping in view the judgment in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006 and also the resolution of the G.A. Department dated 17.09.2013, within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the petitioners and grant consequential service benefits as due admissible to them.
It is further directed that in the event the petitioners are still continuing in their service, status quo as on today in respect of the services of the petitioners shall be maintained till a decision is taken in the matter by the opposite parties in terms of the above direction.
As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioners may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court‟s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court‟s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
Sd/- Biswanath Rath, J"
Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred W.A. No. 298 of 2021 and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 17.06.2021, disposed of the same in the following terms :-
"1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. In this writ appeal, the Appellants (State of Odisha) challenge the order dated 20th August, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Page 13 of 50 W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020 directing the Appellants to regularize the services of the Respondents in light of the judgment in State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka & others v. M. L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247.
3. Notice. Mr.B.S.Tripathy, Advocate accepts notice for the Respondents.
4. Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate general points out that the impugned order was passed on the very first date of listing of the writ petition and was disposed of without notice being issued to the Appellants herein.
Accordingly, there was no occasion for the Appellants to even file a counter affidavit after verifying the factual averments in the petition. Mr. Parija points out that the writ petition was disposed of by simply following an earlier order of the learned Single judge of similar nature which too was passed on the very first date. He further points out that in some of the petitions even the correct Department of the Government was not impleaded as party.
5. Mr.B.S.Tripathy, learned counsel for the Respondents appearing on caveat, does not dispute that the writ petition was disposed of on the very first date of listing without notice to the Appellants and without any opportunity to them to file a counter affidavit.
6. On the above short admitted ground, this Court is of the view that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for a fresh disposal on merits after completion of pleadings.
7. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the Respondents, the impugned order dated 20th August, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.19951 of 2020 is hereby set aside with the following directions:
(i) W.P. (C) No.19951 of 2020 is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge and shall be Page 14 of 50 listed before the learned Single Judge for directions on 19th July, 2021.
(ii) By the aforementioned date, the State of Odisha shall file their para-wise reply to the aforementioned writ petition.
(iii) The Respondents herein i.e. the Writ Petitioners shall be given an opportunity by the learned Single Judge to file a rejoinder to the above affidavit in a time-bound manner. In any event the pleadings in the writ petition shall be completed not later than 31st August, 2021.
(iv) The learned Single Judge is requested to endeavour to dispose of the writ petition on merits not later than 8th November, 2021.
(v) Till the disposal of the writ petition, the status quo as to the services of the Respondents shall be maintained.
8. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court‟s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court‟s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge"
In view of the above quoted order of the Division Bench, the order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge having been set aside, this writ petition was assigned to this Court for its fresh disposal in Page 15 of 50 accordance with the directions contained in para-7 of the order passed by the Division Bench.
3. Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been appointed against regular vacancies and/or sanctioned posts by following due procedure of selection and, as such, they have not entered into service through backdoor method, and in the meantime, they have completed more than 6 years of service. In view of the G.A. Department resolution dated 17.09.2013, on completion of six years of service, they are deemed to be regularized and consequentially orders of regularization have to be issued in their favour by the authorities.
But due to non-issuance of formal order of regularization, the petitioners are deprived of their legitimate claim, even though they are continuing as Data Entry Operators with the scale of pay admissible to the said post. It is further contended that the petitioners had been appointed in the year 2008 against Page 16 of 50 sanctioned post. By the time the resolution came i.e., on 17.09.2013, although they had not completed six years of service, but subsequently, they having fulfilled the said criteria, as a matter of policy decision, they should have been regularized as Data Entry Operators.
It is further contended that the resolution so passed, having been implemented in other departments, non-
extension of benefits of such resolution to the petitioners amounts to discrimination. It is contended that office memorandum dated 07.07.2000 is not applicable to the petitioners, and that by now since the petitioners have completed more than ten years of service against sanctioned posts, their services have to be regularized in terms of the judgments of the apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247; Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265; Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2018 SC 233;Page 17 of 50
Rajnish Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (17) SCC 648; Jatin Kumar Das vs. State of Odisha and others (O.A. No. 2172 (C) of 2015 and batch, disposed of on 17.05.2017), which has been upheld by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6661 of 2018, vide order dated 10.05.2018 and also by the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 18642 of 2018, disposed of on 06.08.2018; Biswamitra Parida & another vs. State of Odisha and another (W.P.(C) No. 22112 of 2020 disposed of on 03.09.2020) which was confirmed in W.A. No. 822 of 2020 by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.02.2021 and also in Special Leave to Appeal No. 6851 of 2021 by the apex Court on 30.06.2021; and Rajendra Kumar Nayak vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2017 (II) ILR -CUT-
912.
4. Per contra, Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Government Advocate argued with vehemence contending that the petitioners, who are working as Page 18 of 50 Data Entry Operators, have filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to regularize their services. One of the pre conditions for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right which entitles him to any of the reliefs, and that such right has been infringed. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their service in accordance with the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 on completion of 6 years of service is not automatic and such resolution has been clarified by subsequent resolution dated 16.01.2014, which provides that no contractual appointee shall be eligible for regular appointment unless the mandatory eligibility conditions prescribed in the resolution dated 17.09.2013 are fulfilled. In paragraph-2 of the resolution dated Page 19 of 50 16.01.2014, it has been specifically mentioned as follows :-
"A part from the contractual employees fulfilling the conditionalities elucidated in para 1 above, there are other categories of contractual employees engaged with or without creation of posts with the concurrence of Finance Department, without following the relevant recruitment and reservation Rules. There are also contractual employees engaged on out sourcing basis through service providing agencies. These contractual employees are not eligible for regularization as per the aforesaid Resolution."
It is further contended that in such cases the mechanism which is to be adopted is, a High Power Committee has to be constituted under the chairmanship of the Secretary of the relevant Department in which the concerned Head of the Department and FA/AFA of the Department shall be the members. Such High Power Committee by considering the cases of regularization should ensure that the concerned appointees fulfill the mandatory eligibility conditions as prescribed in the resolution dated 17.09.2013. The same having not been complied, the petitioners cannot be regularized as claimed in this Page 20 of 50 writ petition. To the alternative argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is contended that the completion of 10 years of services is in terms of Umadevi (supra) but by the time such judgment was rendered, the petitioners had not competed 10 years of services, therefore, their service cannot be regularized. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union and others, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 256.
5. This Court heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for State-opposite parties by hybrid mode. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission in compliance of order dated 17.06.2021 passed in W.A. No. 298 of 2021.
Page 21 of 50
6. Before delving into the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to mention here that the apex Court in Roma Sonkar v. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission, 2018 (II) OLR (SC) 483 held that the Division Bench in appeal arising out of order passed under writ jurisdiction exercises same jurisdiction, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is not sub-ordinate to the Division Bench. In such circumstance, the Division Bench is to consider the writ appeal on merits instead of remitting the matter back to the learned Single Judge. But, in this case, the Division Bench, instead of deciding the writ appeal on merit, has remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge with certain directions as contained in para-7 of the order itself. Therefore, adhering to the judicial discipline, this Court, in compliance of the order dated 17.06.2021 passed by Page 22 of 50 the Division Bench, heard this matter afresh in terms of the directions contained in para-7 of the said order.
7. On careful consideration of the rival contentions and on perusal of materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioners, having requisite eligibility criteria and on being duly selected through a transparent written test conducted by the selection committee headed by ADM, had been appointed against the sanctioned vacant posts and continued to work for more than 6 years, without benefit or protection of the interim order of any court, or tribunal. Therefore, they are deemed to be regularized in PB-1 Rs.5200-20000/- + GP Rs.1900/- with usual allowances admissible from time to time, as per GA Department resolution dated 17.09.2013 by issuing a formal order of regularization in their favour, particularly when such benefits have already been extended to similarly circumstanced employees of other departments vide Annexure-11 series. Non-extension of Page 23 of 50 such benefits to the petitioners amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power by the authority, which violates Article -14 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged in the year 2008 and are continuing in service till date by getting extension from spell to spell, and as such, a right has already been accrued in their favour on completion of six years of satisfactory service in terms of the resolution dated 17.09.2013.
8. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Court comes into picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, and to ensure the rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the authority should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. For this very reason, it is held that a Page 24 of 50 person should not be kept in contractual, temporary or ad hoc status for a long period. Where a contractual, temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is need of a regular post and accordingly directs for regularization. While issuing direction for regularization, the Court must first ascertain the relevant fact, and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such direction. If for any reason, a contractual, ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization, provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. Even though a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell, say two or three years, a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his service. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to Page 25 of 50 examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with empathy for the person.
9. In Umadevi (3) (supra) the apex Court in paragraph-53 of the judgment held as follows:
"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071; R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan v.
State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any Page 26 of 50 already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
10. Further, in M.L. Kesari (supra), following the ratio decided in Umadevi (3) (supra), the apex Court in paragraphs 9, 10 & 11 of the judgment held as follows:
"9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily- wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 Page 27 of 50 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one- time exercise should consider all daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4- 2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are Page 28 of 50 entitled to be considered for regularisation.
The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure."
11. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularization and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is Page 29 of 50 precisely what Umadevi (3) and M.L.Kesari (supra), sought to avoid.
12. The laudable objective behind the aforementioned judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L. Keshari is to prevent the employers to exploit employees by engaging them in different categories of names, i.e., daily/casual/NMR and now contractual one. Therefore, as an one time measure, the apex Court observed that for the employees, who have completed ten years of service as on the judgment of Umadevi, the employers should take steps for regularization of their services so that the irregularly and illegally engaged employees, having rendered so many years, will not be exploited any further. But the avowed objective of the judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L. Keshari has not been adhered to by the employer in letter and spirit. In contravention to such objective, the employers have gone on engaging the employees in different names, more particularly, Page 30 of 50 now-a-days, as contractual engagement. Thereby, the employers are overreaching the principle laid down by the apex Court in aforementioned judgments. For that, the employees should not be denied the benefit of regularization, as they have been exploited by the employers.
13. In Malathi Das (Retired) Now P.B. Mahishy v. Suresh; (2014) 13 SCC 249, relying upon the ratio decided in Umadevi (3) (supra), the apex Court held that refusing regularization of service cannot be countenanced to such decision and, therefore, clarified that the appellants therein so also all other competent authorities of the State would be obliged and duty bound to regularize the services of employees which will be done forthwith.
14. In Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa, AIR 2014 SC 1716, the apex Court clarified the ratio decided in Umadevi (3) (supra) at paragraphs 34 and 35 as follows:
Page 31 of 50
"34. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (AIR 2006 SC 1806 : 2006 AIR SCW 1991) ruled that regularisation of illegal or irregularly appointed persons could never be an alternative mode of recruitment to public service. Such recruitments were, in the opinion of this Court, in complete negation of the guarantees contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Having said so, this Court did not upset the regularisations that had already taken place, regardless of whether such regularisations related to illegal or irregular appointments. The ratio of the decision in that sense was prospective in its application, leaving untouched that which had already happened before the pronouncement of that decision. This is evident from the following passage appearing in the decision:
"We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
35. The above is a significant feature of the pronouncement of this Court in Umadevi's case (supra). The second and equally significant feature is the exception which this Court made in para 53 of the decision permitting a one-time exception for regularising services of such employees as had been irregularly appointed and had served for ten years or more. The State Government and its instrumentalities were required to formulate schemes within a period of six months from the date of the decision for regularisation of such employees. This is evident from a reading of para 53 (of SCC) : Page 32 of 50
(Para 44 of AIR, AIR SCW) of the decision which is reproduced in extenso:
"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (AIR 1967 SC 1071) (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (AIR 1972 SC 1767) (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (AIR 1979 SC 1676) (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals.
The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date..."
15. So far as "irregular appointment" is concerned, the same has also been clarified in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (supra) at paragraph- 43 as follows:
Page 33 of 50
"43. As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 247 :
(AIR 2010 SC 2587 : 2010 AIR SCW 4577), has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi's case (supra). The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularisation (1) the employees worked for ten years or more, (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation. Para 7 in this regard is apposite and may be extracted at this stage:
"7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation"
enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular.
Where the appointments are not made Page 34 of 50 or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."
16. The apex Court in Amarkant Rai, mentioned supra, referring to Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, in paragraphs 12 & 13 held as follows:
"12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , this Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 14 SCC 65 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 85] directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of Punjab holding as under: (Nihal Singh case [(2013) 14 SCC 65 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 85] , SCC pp. 79- 80, paras 35-36) "35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be Page 35 of 50 arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State.
36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is--the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks."
13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades.
17. In Sheo Narain Nagar, mentioned supra, the apex Court in paragraph-8 of the judgment held as follows:
Page 36 of 50
"8. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Uma Devi (Supra) has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad-hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments.
We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Uma Devi (supra). The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Uma Devi (supra) has been ignored and conveniently over looked by various State Governments/ authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Uma Devi (supra) has not be implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularizing the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Article 14, 16 read with Article 34 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of down trodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the Page 37 of 50 ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Uma Devi (supra) can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Uma Devi (supra) laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible, when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Uma Devi (supra).
18. In Rajnish Kumar Mishra, mentioned supra, the three-Judge Bench of the apex Court in paragraphs-12 and 16 of the judgment held as follows:
"12. The learned counsel further submits, that this Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.1, after considering the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. 1 (2018) 13 SCC 432 {Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 [@ SLP(C) No.6183/2015]} Umadevi (3) & Ors.2 wherein it was observed that as a onetime measure the employer should take steps for regularisation of the services of the employees who had put in service of 10 years or more and had directed regularization of the appellants therein. The learned counsel further submits, that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
16. It is further to be noted that similarly circumstanced employees in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh, who were appointed on daily wages/contractual basis had approached the Allahabad High Court praying for regularization of their services. The Single Judge had dismissed the Page 38 of 50 writ petitions which orders were affirmed by the Division Bench. The said employees therein had approached this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6183 of 2015) in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar cited supra. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra):
"The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a onetime measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect in the 02.10.2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularized from the said date i.e. 02.10.2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today."
19. The apex Court in Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela, (in Civil Appeal No. 4443 of 2021, arising out of SLP (C) No. 12171 of 2019) was pleased to extend benefit to the daily wager for regularization on confirming the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court.
20. In view of the order passed by the tribunal in Jatin Kumar Das, mentioned supra, which Page 39 of 50 was confirmed by this Court, benefit has already been extended to the Data Entry Operators working in different departments of the Government. Similarly, pursuant to order passed by this Court in Surendra Kumar Das vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No. 21188 of 2013) and Umesh Chandra Ghadei vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No. 1666 of 2014) regularization has been made in their cases.
21. In Biswamitra Parida, mentioned supra, the order having been confirmed by the apex Court, benefit has already been extended to the petitioners in the said case.
22. In Biswamitra Parida, mentioned supra, the State had taken a stand in the apex Court to the following effect:
"However, the Hon‟ble Court committed a manifest miscarriage of justice by passing the impugned order dated 10.02.2021 failed to appreciate the merit of the case and dismissed W.A. No. 822 of 2020. Hence, the Petitioners herein have preferred to file the present Special Leave Petition on the following grounds amongst others;Page 40 of 50
Firstly, the Hon‟ble High Court committed gross miscarriage of justice by ignoring that the regularization of the Respondents would be against the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 issued by the Government in General Administration Department and subsequent Resolution issued on 16.01.2014 and Letter dated 14.03.2018 of the Govt. Circular dated 14.03.2018 of the Government as well as the Odisha Group-C and Group-D posts (contractual appointment) Rules, 2013.
Secondly, The Hon‟ble High Court ignored what has been held by this Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. V. Dayalal and Ors. Reported in 2011 (2) SCC 429 wherein this Hon‟ble Court observed as follows:
" We may at the outset: refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in pay, relevant in context of these appeals.
(i) High Courts in exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employee claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of regular recruitment in accordance with relevant Rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant post. The equality clause contained in Article 14 & 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts should not Issue a direction for regularization of service of an employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the roof of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, Page 41 of 50 appointment contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by an temporary or adhoc or daily wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the Court would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service as such service would be „litigious employment‟. Ever temporary, adhoc or daily wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiments cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right."
Thirdly, that the Hon‟ble High Court failed to consider the conditions reflected in the order of appointment of the Respondents wherein it was clearly stipulated that the appointment is on contractual basis and no claim for regularization will be entertained. Moreover, the Respondents herein accepted the said condition while joining as Jr. Data Entry Operators and hence, they ought to have been stopped from claiming regularization by the Courts below when the Respondents herewith voluntarily accepted the said condition. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court is non-est in the eyes of law. The submission finds its strength from the decision of this Hon‟ble Court in the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Fourthly, the Hon‟ble High Court exceeded their jurisdiction in passing the order when the decision of regularization, absorption etc. was a decision purely in the hands of the Petitioners, i.e., the executive and the Courts had no right to encroach upon the same by passing a direction directing the Page 42 of 50 regularization of the Respondents in contravention to the mandatory requirement of facing the selection process as provided for in the rules framed by the Petitioner No.1. The strength of this submission arises from the decision of this Hon‟ble Court in the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, reported I (2007) 1 SCC 408 wherein it was held that :
" 37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularization are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General [ (2002) 2 SCC 632 : 2003 SCC ( L & S) 191].
Hence, the Court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, as the judiciary, too, must know its limits." Thereby, the contentions, which are being raised now, had been raised in Biswamitra Parida (supra) by the State before the apex Court. By dismissing such SLP, the stand taken has been negatived. As such, benefit has been extended to Biswamitra Parida. Thereby, the opposite parties cannot raise similar question before this Court. In other words, the same cannot be taken into consideration at this stage to deprive the legitimate claim of the petitioners.
Page 43 of 50
23. In Rajendra Kumar Nayak, mentioned supra, this Court directed the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner in the said case and grant all consequential service benefits as due and admissible to the post held by him. In compliance of the said direction, the service of the Rajendra Kumar Nayak has already been regularized and he has already been extended with the benefits.
24. In Sunil Barik v. State of Odisha, 2021 (II) OLR-469, since the petitioner had been discharging the duties against a sanctioned vacancy in the post of barber with the knowledge of the employer on daily wage basis for a quite long time, and his engagement was due to the emergent situation, this Court directed for regularization of his service with all consequential benefits.
25. So far as applicability of the case of University of Delhi, mentioned supra, as relied on by Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Page 44 of 50 Advocate for the State opposite parties, to the present case is concerned, factually the same is distinguishable. The fact in the case of University of Delhi is that by communication dated 31.08.1999 the UGC imposed a ban on filling up of non-teaching posts in all institutes/universities and affiliated colleges. On 12.01.2011, the UGC sanctioned and allowed the University to fill up 255 posts of Junior Assistants. Accordingly, by amending rules, an advertisement was published on 06.11.2013 inviting applications for filling up 255 posts of Junior Assistants in the University. However, for the period from 2003 to 2013 various appointments were made by the University on contract basis, as a result of which about 300 Junior Assistants are presently in the employment of the University on contract basis, most of whom are members of the Union.
Soon after the advertisement dated 06.11.2013, the Delhi University Contract Employees Page 45 of 50 Union and others filed Writ Petition (C) No.7929 of 2013 before the Delhi High Court seeking regularization of services of members of the union. Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, vide order dated 16.12.2013, rejected the said writ petition relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra). Against the said order, the Delhi University Contract Employees Union preferred LPA No.989 of 2013 before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, the Division Bench vide judgment dated 22.11.2016 allowed the writ appeal and the University was directed to design and hold an appropriate test for selection in terms of the notification dated 06.11.2013.
Challenging the said order of Division Bench, Delhi University filed Civil appeal No.1007 of 2021 and the Union also preferred an appeal and the same is numbered as Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4906 of 2021. The apex Court confirmed the judgment passed by the learned Single Page 46 of 50 Judge holding as one time measure, the regularization has to be made in terms of the judgment in Umadevi (3) (supra). But by the time Umadevi (3) (supra) came into effect, the employees had put in 3 to 4 years of service on contract basis. Though benefit of regularization cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be given to them to compete with the available talent through public advertisement. But the petitioners in the instant case have been appointed through a process of selection and, as such, they are continuing for more than 6 years and their services have to be regularized in terms of G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013. Thereby, factually and legally the judgment of Delhi University is distinguishable and, as such, the same is not applicable to the present case.
26. The decision taken by the Government on 16.03.2020 in Annexure-17 as well as Finance Department memorandum dated 07.07.2020 in Page 47 of 50 Annexure-19 has no application to the present context, as the petitioners are governed by the Government resolution dated 17.09.2013 and they have completed six years of service and continuing against the sanctioned post by following due process of selection, for which they are entitled to formal order of regularization, as they are deemed to be regularized in service.
27. Considering from all angels, since the petitioners have already rendered more than 6 years of service, they are deemed to be regularized. Thereby, only formal order of regularization has to be issued in consonance with the resolution dated 17.09.2013 passed by the authority. Otherwise also they have completed ten years of service, having been appointed by the authorities against sanctioned posts by following due process of selection, and continued by them voluntarily, their services are to be regularized in terms of judgments of the apex Court, as discussed above. Page 48 of 50 Furthermore, when services of similarly situated persons have been regularized in other departments, the petitioners cannot be deprived of such benefit on the caprice and whims of the authority concerned and such action of the State and its instrumentalities cannot sustain in the eye of law.
28. In view of the factual and legal aspects, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the services of the petitioners should be regularized by issuing formal letters of regularization in terms of the G.A. Department letter dated 17.09.2013, as they have already completed 6 years of service, on being appointed against sanctioned posts by following due procedure of selection. Otherwise also they having completed more than ten years of service, on being employed and continued by the authorities, in terms of the judgments of the apex Court, as discussed above, their services are also to be regularized. Accordingly, this Court directs the opposite parties to regularize the services of the Page 49 of 50 petitioners and grant them all consequential service and financial benefits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment.
29. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. But, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
..............................
DR. B.R. SARANGI, JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9th September, 2021, Ajaya/GDS Page 50 of 50