Orissa High Court
Nirakar Barik vs State Of Odisha & Others. .... Opposite ... on 24 August, 2021
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OA) No. 2794 of 2014
Nirakar Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. R. Mohanty, Adv.
-Versus -
State of Odisha & others. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. M. Balabantaray, Standing
Counsel for the State
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
24.08.2021 Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
012. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 14.10.2014 Annexure-8, by which it was decided to take further action on the representation of the adhoc employees of Chief Engineer, U.I.I.P. on the point that (1) no extension of financial benefits like annual increment, GPF, GIS etc. as the employees are continuing on adhoc basis and the benefits claimed are not in conformity with Service Code or other relevant rules, (2) the three employees, namely, (a) Sri Tapas Kumar Jena, Trace (b) Sri Nirakar Barik, Peon and (c) Sri Maheswar Nayak, Peon can participate in the recruitment test in respective of age limit and if selected their salary be fixed as per FD circular No. 44193/21.10.2010 and he further seeks direction for regularization of his service.
Page 1 of 14. Mr. R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very same order dated 14.10.2014 has been challenged before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 241 of 2015 by one of the employees, namely Sri Tapas Kumar Jena, who is working as Tracer and whose name finds place at serial no, 2(a) of the impugned order and the Tribunal vide order dated 19.08.2016 in Annexure-13 disposed of the O.A. by quashing Annexure-8. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the State in W.P.(C) No. 5142 of 2017, which was also dismissed on 12.02.2018. The said order of this Court was challenged before the Supreme Court by preferring SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 10768 of 2019. The said SLP was also dismissed. Thereby, the order of the Tribunal quashing Annexure-8 has been made confirmed by the apex Court. Consequentially, the relief sought by the petitioner so far as the first prayer is concerned has already been granted. So far as the second prayer seeking for regularization of service of the petitioner is concerned, the same may be considered in the light of the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1; State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Keshari and others, 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982; Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.
5. Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that he has no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties after going through the records, the relief sought in the Page 2 of 2 prayer so far as quashing of Annexure-8 is concerned, the same has already been made confirmed by the apex Court. Therefore, there is no need of passing of any further order to that extent. As such, the order passed by the apex Court is binding on all the parties.
7. So far as the claim for regularization of service of the petitioner is concerned, let the petitioner file a fresh representation before the authority concerned within a period of fifteen days. If such representation is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed of in the light of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1; State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Keshari and others, 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982; Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
8. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
A.K. Rana Judge
Page 3 of 3