Orissa High Court
Biswajit Swain vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 21 April, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET(RPC) Nos.46 & 49 of 2019
Biswajit Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
21.04.2023 Order No
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Since a common order passed by the Tribunal on 27.02.2019 has been sought for review by the Petitioners in both the Review Petitions, both were heard analogously and disposed of vide the present common order.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners seeking regularization of their services as Data Entry Operators on completion of 6 years of service as per the policy decision of the Govt. approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2758(C) of 2017 and O.A. No. 2771(C) of 2017.
4. It is contended that though the Tribunal allowed similar claim of DEOs in the case of Jatin Kumar Das Vs. State of Odisha (O.A. No. 2172(C) of 2015 and batch, which was upheld by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6661 of 2018 and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 18642 of 2018, but similar prayer as made by the // 2 // Petitioners in both these Review Petitions were rejected by the Tribunal vide the impugned order dtd.27.02.2019.
5. Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners contended that not only the claim of the Review Petitioners were illegally rejected by the Tribunal without following the order passed in the case of Jatin Kumar Das as cited (supra), but also in view of the subsequent decision of this Court so passed in the case of Patitapaban Dutta Dash & Ors. Vs. Sate of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 19951 of 2020), which has now been confirmed in the Writ Appeal, the impugned order dtd.27.02.2019 is required to be reviewed by this Court by allowing the prayer of the Petitioners as made in their respective Original Applications.
6. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned ASC on the other hand made his submission basing on the materials available on record. It is contended that the Petitioners since were engaged through outsourcing, though as Data Entry Operators, their claim cannot be treated as similar to the claim so allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Jatin Kumar Das. It is also contended that since the Petitioners were engaged through outsourcing, their claim is also not covered as per the decision in the case of Patitapaban Dutta Dash. It is also contended that the order passed by this Court in the case of similarly situated Data Entry Operators engaged through outsourcing, is pending adjudication before this Court in Writ Appeal and unless the order so passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of similarly situated Data Entry Operators engaged through outsourcing is confirmed by the Writ Appellate Court, the order in question is not liable for review.
Page 2 of 3// 3 //
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going though the materials available on record, it is found that both the Review Petitioners were engaged as Data Entry Operators through outsourcing basis. In view of such nature of engagement through outsourcing, their claim that they are similarly situated as like the case in Jatin Kumar Das as well as Patitapaban Dutta Dash is not entertainable. Therefore, this Court finds that the Tribunal has rightly rejected their claim vide the order in question. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Review Petitions so filed against the order dtd.27.02.2019.
8. The Review Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
9. Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case record.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Page 3 of 3