Orissa High Court
Chhabindra Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 4 August, 2021
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OA) No. 2710 of 2016
Chhabindra Kumar Samal ..... Petitioner
Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. N.K. Praharaj, Standing Counsel
for the State
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
04.08.2021 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
02. Heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to CDMO, Angul to regularize/absorb the service of the petitioner in the regular vacant post of Pharmacist in regular establishment keeping in view of government resolution under Annexure-3 and 4 so also the G.A. Department Resolution/ Rule with all consequential service benefits.
Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar question had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in Amit Kumar Mishra and others vs. State of Odisha and others in O.A. No. 744 of 2017, which was disposed of on 17.05.2018. In paragraph-7 it has been held as follows:
"7. Hence the impugned order at Annexure-9 dtd.20.04.2017 issued by the C.D.M.O., Balangir stands quashed. The applicants be brought over as Contractual Pharmacists under General Health Stream/DDC without facing further recruitment test as per Advertisement dtd.15.07.2015 under Annexure-7 as they have already completed six years of contractual service in Mobile Health Unit (MHU). This exercise be completed within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
With these orders, the O.A. is disposed of."
The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No.3957 of 2019, which was disposed of on 21.11.2019 confirming the order of the Tribunal and as such, the order of the Tribunal having not been complied with, W.P.(C) No. 1353 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed on 03.02.2020 directing the opposite parties to work out the direction of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 477 of 2017 dated 17.05.2018, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of that order by the petitioner. Against the said order, the State preferred appeal before the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13077 of 2020. The said appeal was dismissed on 12.01.2021 with an observation that:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner (s) states that apparently the Rules are not very happily worded and what was envisaged was that even the contractual Pharmacists would have to go through an open selection process in view of Rule 5(ii). If it was so, in our view, that the Rule should have been so framed as Rule 4 introduces a deeming fiction for regular employee who have completed six years of service."
It is further contended that since new rule came into force with effect from 8th March, 2019, in view of the observation made by the apex Court, the benefit should be extended to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner having stood same footing with that of the Amit Kumar Mishra and others (supra), his case should be considered in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal as well as this Court and apex Court.
Mr. Praharaj, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State submits that since the question has already been decided by the Tribunal as well as this Court and apex Court, the case of the petitioner may be considered.
Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court disposes of this writ petition with a direction to opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner and act in view of the direction given by the Tribunal in Amit Kumar Mishra and others (supra), which has been confirmed by this Court as well as Apex Court, as expeditiously as possible, preferably with a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
A.K. Rana JUDGE