RAJIB LOCHAN MAHANTA Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajib Lochan Mahanta, who was working as a Group-D employee in Utkal University, Khurda, has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to remove the discrimination and regularize him in the Group-D post available in the establishment of opposite party-University and place him in the gradation list meant for Class-IV posts for consequential services and financial benefits as due and admissible to him at par with similarly situated persons, whose services have already been regularized.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that in Dhrubananda Mishra and others vs. ViceChancellor, Utkal University,1994 77 CutLT 70, nine petitioners had approached this Court seeking two directions from this Court- the first was relating to regularization of service and the second was to pay them equal to that of their counterparts in regular service. The Division Bench of this Court held that regularization has been accepted as a part and parcel of condition of service and specifically for those, who had completed five years of continuous service. Since all the nine petitioners in the said writ petition had completed more than five years of continuous service, so a case of regularization was made out and the Division Bench of this Court directed the opposite parties to take early steps for regularization of those petitioners, along with other eligible employees, by framing an appropriate scheme and, thereafter, to regularize as per the seniority of the incumbents. It was also directed that apart from the basic pay, those petitioners at all be entitled to dearness and additional dearness allowance only being paid to the regular hands. That entitlement would be given effect from the date of passing of the judgment, i.e., 13.01.1993. It is apparent that on regularization, the incumbents would get the pay and other allowances as are available to regularly employed employees.

(3.) Mr. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that once the matter has been settled by the apex Court in SLP, in compliance of the order dated 13.01.1993 passed in Dhrubananda Mishra (supra), the petitioner, who is coming under the other eligible employees category, having completed five years of continuous service, is entitled to be regularized and as such, he is also entitled to get equal pay for equal work. In compliance of direction of the Division Bench of this Court, though seniority list was prepared and the name of the petitioner was found place at serial no. 171, but his services were not regularized, even though the services of one Niranjan Patra, who was just above the petitioner at serial no. 170, have been regularized. Thereby, the petitioner along with others again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7391 of 2006, which was disposed of on 26.02.2009 taking into averments made in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, wherein it was specifically stated that pursuant to the order of this Court in OJC No. 348 of 1990, the University prepared a list of DLRs according to their date of engagement and regularized 77 persons according to the vacancies. In the meantime, the Government on 14.03.2001 imposed ban on the recruitment as a part of austerity measure. Furthermore, the University had also moved the State Government to permit it to fill up the vacancies in Group-D category. Till then the University had not received any reply from the State Government. Thereby, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 26.02.2009 directing the State Government to take decision on the proposal given by the University within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of that order. Consequentially, in compliance of such order, some of the persons have already been regularized, but the petitioner has only been discriminated. As such, his service has not been regularized nor has he been granted the benefit as due and admissible to him, in view of judgment of this Court in Dhrubananda Mishra (supra). On the other hand, he has not been allowed to continue in service and no such communication has been made to the petitioner. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgments in Dhrubananda Mishra v. Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University,1994 77 CutLT 70; State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika , 1966 AIR(SC) 1313; Dulu Devi v. State of Assam , 2016 1 SCC 622; and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Keshari , 2010 AIR(SC) 2587.