Orissa High Court
Chandan Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 1 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15497 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
..................
Chandan Kumar Panda .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:01.09.2025 and Date of Judgment:01.09.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 02.12.2020 so passed by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-10.
// 2 //
3. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by O.P. No.3 on 02.03.2008 under Annexure-2 for engagement of Contractual Para Medical Staff under Health and Family Welfare Department/CDMO, Keonjhar, petitioner participated in the selection process and basing on the decision taken by the Selection Committee in its proceeding held on 28.11.2008, so available under Annexure-3, petitioner was engaged as against the post of Cook on contractual basis vide order of engagement issued on 21.12.2008 under Annexure-4 series. 3.1. It is contended that consolidated salary so allowed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 was further enhanced to Rs.4440/- vide order dated 08.10.2009 under Annexure-5 of the self-same O.P. No.3. It is also contended that such consolidated wages was also enhanced from time to time and petitioner all through continued as against the contractual post of Cook. Page 2 of 10
// 3 // 3.2. It is contended that even though petitioner continued as against a contractual post all through basing on the selection process initiated vide advertisement under Annexure-2, but petitioner when was not regularized in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and further Resolution issued on 16.01.2014 under Annexure-7 & 8, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12417 of 2020.
3.3. This Court vide order dated 02.07.2020, when directed O.P. No.3 to take a decision on the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 so issued under Annexure-7 and 8, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order, on the ground that petitioner is continuing as a daily wager and not on contractual basis. 3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, the proceeding available under Annexure-3 and the order Page 3 of 10 // 4 // of engagement issued under Annexure-4 series, contended that petitioner was engaged on contractual basis as against the post of Cook. But while issuing the order of engagement O.P. No.3 committed a wrong by indicating therein that petitioner was engaged on contractual basis with daily wages. It is accordingly contended that such wrong cannot dis-entitle the petitioner to get the benefit of absorption in terms of the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014, so issued under Annexure-7 and 8.
3.5. It is accordingly contended that ground on which petitioner's claim for regularization/absorption has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 under Annexure-10 is not sustainable in the eye of law and petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution issued under Annexure-7 and
8.
4. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the Page 4 of 10 // 5 // stand taken in the counter so filed by O.P. No.3. It is contended that even though petitioner pursuant to Annexure-2 was engaged as a Cook on contractual basis but petitioner was paid with the wages as prescribed for a daily wager. Stand taken in Para-9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:
"9. That, in reply to the averments made in Para- 8 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted, that the petitioner was engaged as Cook on daily-wage basis vide Order No.7790 dated 21.12.2008 of the Chief District Medical Officer, Keonjhar and one of the conditions stipulated in the engagement order that the appointees will not claim any Govt. Post/Regular appointment in future. The petitioner has been paid with daily wages at the rate fixed/revised by Govt. of Odisha, Labour & E.S.I Deptt. from time to time, and not any consolidated salary right since the day of his joining in the job. The petitioner is an unskilled labourer and as such, wage with Variable Dearness Allowance(VDA) @ Rs.345/- per day has been paid to him w.e.f 01.04.2023 as per Notification No.2500/LC dtd.05.04.2023 of the Labour Commissioner, Odisha. A total amount of Rs.l0,005/-(Rupees ten thousand five) only as wage with VDA is paid to the petitioner for the month of Febaiary,2024 vide Bill No.368 dtd.26.02.2024 and Treasury Voucher No.2210293\ dtd.29.02.2024. Copy of Notification dtd.05.04.2023 and a copy of Bill dated 26.02.2024 are annexed herewith as Annexure-B/3 & C/3 respectively.
Both Resolution No.26108 dtd. 17.09.2013 and Resolution No.1066 dtd.16.01.2014 of Govt. of Odisha, General Administrative Deptt. are meant for the contractual appointments/engagements which have been made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services. The petitioner is a daily-wage worker, and not a Page 5 of 10 // 6 // contractual appointee. Therefore, the provisions stipulated in the said Resolutions are not applicable to the petitioner."
4.1. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner was paid with the wages as a daily wager, petitioner's claim cannot be considered in terms of the resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexure-7 and 8. It is accordingly contended that petitioner's claim has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order.
5. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that petitioner was all through paid with consolidated wages and only to frustrate his claim, petitioner was paid with wages of Rs.10,005/- in the month of February, 2024. Since by the time this Court directed O.P. No.3 for consideration of his claim to get the benefit of absorption in terms of the Annexure-7 and 8, petitioner was in receipt of consolidated wages starting from his initial engagement, the plea taken in the counter affidavit is not acceptable. It is accordingly contended that Page 6 of 10 // 7 // appropriate direction be issued to absorb the petitioner against the post of Cook with quashing of the impugned order.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that basing on the advertisement issued by O.P. No.3 on 02.03.2008 under Annexure-2 and the decision taken by the Selection Committee in its proceeding dated 28.11.2008 under Annexure-3, petitioner was engaged as a Cook on contractual basis vide order dated 21.12.2008 under Annexure-4 series. This Court after going through the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 and the proceeding of the Selection Committee made under Annexure-3, finds that the advertisement was issued for appointment of the selected candidates on contractual basis. The said fact was also reiterated by the Selection Committee in its proceeding under Annexure-3.
6.1. On the face of the stipulation contained in the advertisement and the decision taken by the Committee Page 7 of 10 // 8 // under Annexure-3, it is the view of this Court that petitioner was engaged on contractual basis vide order dated 21.12.2008 under Annexure-4 series. The word "engaged on contractual basis with daily wages" so reflected in the order of engagement as per the considered view of this Court was not required to be incorporated.
6.2. Considering the nature of the advertisement, the decision taken under Annexure-3 and the order of engagement issued under Annexure-4 series, it is the view of this Court that petitioner was engaged on contractual basis with payment of consolidated wages. The stand taken by O.P. No.3 in Para-9 of the counter is not acceptable on the face of the recruitment undertaken pursuant to Annexure-2 and the decision of the Selection Committee so taken under Annexure-3. Not only that by the time this Court directed for consideration of the petitioner's claim for absorption vide order dated 02.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No.12417 of 2020, petitioner was in receipt of consolidated wages, Page 8 of 10 // 9 // as no document has been enclosed in the counter affidavit showing payment of wages as a daily wager. As found from Para-9 of the counter affidavit, petitioner has been paid with wages as per notification dtd.05.04.2023 from the month of February, 2024. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that claim of the petitioner is covered by the Resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexure-7 and 8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ground on which petitioner's claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
6.4. This Court accordingly is inclined to quash order dated 02.12.2020 so issued by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-10. While quashing the said order, this Court directs O.P. No.3 to take a fresh decision on the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of regularization by taking his engagement as a contractual one all through, in terms of the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 Page 9 of 10 // 10 // and 16.01.2014 under Annexure-7 and 8. This Court directs O.P. No.3 to take a fresh decision as directed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the petitioner.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 1st September, 2025/Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2025 12:01:09 Page 10 of 10