Orissa High Court
Jabamani Tudu vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 23 April, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.33753 of 2023
Jabamani Tudu ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Rama Krishna Bisoi
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director Of Nursing, Bbsr Represented By Adv. -
3) Cdm And Pho, Mayurbhanj
Mr.Saswat Das, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 23.04.2024
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.
4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is ardently prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to antedate the date of regularization of petitioner on completion of six years of contractual service and extent all service and financial benefits to her within a time stipulation as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
And /or issue any other appropriate writ/writs, Page 1 of 4. order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case."
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an identical matter was placed before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1821 of 2015. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2017, by a detailed order, allowed the O.A. by directing the Opposite Parties to take appropriate decision for regularization of service of the applicant in those cases who have completed 6 years of service keeping in view the fact that similar benefit has been extended in favour of the Junior Radiographers and Staff Nurses and accordingly, the date of regularization was antedated on completion of six years with consequential service benefits. The order passed by the Tribunal on 21.07.2017 was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4099 of 2021 that is in the matter of State of Odisha and others V. Ajaya Kumar Behera and others by the State-Opposite Parties. A division bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2021, by a detailed order, dismissed the writ application with certain observations. Following the aforesaid order several writ applications bearing W.P.(C) No.12313 of 2021 were disposed of on 02.11.2021 by a Division Bench. In the aforesaid factual legal backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner by keeping in view the aforesaid settled position of law. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to the order dated 28th April, 2010, under Annexure-4/1 submitted that the petitioner's name was sponsored for being appointed as staff nurse under the NRHM. Accordingly, she was appointed as a Staff Nurse. He further referred to the resolution under Annexure-5 series to submit before this Court Page 2 of 4. that the Government has taken a policy decision to regularize the service of staff nurse engaged on contractual basis on the completion of six years of continued service on contractual basis.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that petitioner does not come within the purview of the resolution passed by the Government. He further contended that the petitioner was appointed as ANM and not against the post of staff nurse. Therefore, the status of the petitioner was disputed. He further contended that taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner and similarly situated other employees, the CDM-PHO Mayurbhanj vide order dated 29th ,December, 2020 under Annexure- 7, was pleased to regularize the service of the petitioner against the post of staff nurse in a scale of pay as provided in their respective appointment letters. Accordingly, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the petitioner should not have any further grievance with regard to the regularization of his service as he has already been regularized by the order under Annexure-7 to the writ application. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court observes that similar issues were placed before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal relating to the staff nurses. Learned Tribunal had directed to regularize their service upon completion of six years of service. Such order passed by the tribunal has already been upheld by the division bench of this court as has been referred to hereinabove in detail. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ Page 3 of 4. application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by keeping in view the order passed by the tribunal as well as by this Court as has been referred to hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date of communication of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No. 1 along with a copy of today's order as well as the orders and judgments referred to hereinabove within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the same in terms of the aforesaid direction by passing a speaking order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such a decision. Further, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.1 shall examine whether the petitioner is covered by the ratio of the orders/judgments referred to hereinabove. In the event the Opposite Party No.1 comes to a conclusion that the petitioner is so covered by the ratio of the orders/judgments referred to hereinabove, then similar benefits be extended in faovur of the petitioner, provided there is no other legal impediment to the same.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Page 4 of 4.
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-Apr-2024 10:12:18