SUCHARITA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are working as Data Entry Operators/Computer Supervisors in the establishment of opposite party no.2-State Transport Authority, have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to issue formal orders in their favour regularizing their services in the Pay Band-1- 5200-20,200+GP Rs.1900.00, as per G.A. Department Resolution dtd. 17/9/2013, on completion of satisfactory service as has been allowed to the similarly outsourced Data Entry Operators in various State Government Departments and other various Government Establishments with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that in order to introduce e-Governance system in the Road Transport Sector, Govt. of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, in exercise of their powers conferred under Ss. 27, 64, 110 and 137 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, amended the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 w.e.f. 31/5/2002, vide Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Notification No.GSR- 400(E) dtd. 31/5/2002 . The said Rules were called as the Central Motor Vehicle (Third Amendment) Rules, 2002. The said notification authorized both the State Government and Union Territories to specify their respective notification. Basing on the said notification of the Government of India, opposite party no.1 issued guidelines dtd. 10/8/2004 to implement the mandatory statutory provisions of Central Motor Vehicle (Third Amendment) Rules, 2002 by inviting private participation to carry out entire e-Governance system in the Road Transport Sector including various functions relating to issuance of Smart Card based driving license, registration certificates and other functions of the Transport Department in the State of Odisha. Thereafter, Govt. of Odisha-opposite party no.1 invited proposals from successful bidders vide NIT dtd. 15/9/2005 and finally accepted the bid of M/s. Smart Chip Limited, New Delhi-M/s Smart Chip (P) Ltd. by issuing letter of acceptance dtd. 1/5/2006 for implementation of the aforesaid project.

(3.) Mr. B.S Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the petitioners admitting the fact that the petitioners were engaged by outsourcing agency, emphatically urged that they have been rendering service for opposite party no.1-Transport Organization for more than 10 years continuously and that though essentially they are discharging the nature of duties assigned to government service, but they are being paid by outsourcing agency. Such an action is nothing but a camouflaged approach made by the State authorities to the service rendered by the petitioners just to deprive them of the benefits of contractual employment, as per resolution dtd. 17/9/2013 passed by the Government in G.A. Department and subsequent Rules framed in 2013 called "Odisha Group-"C" and Group-"D" Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013". It is also contended that even though the petitioners are engaged on outsourcing basis, they are discharging their duties and responsibility of the State and, therefore, they are entitled to get regularization in terms of the Government resolution dtd. 17/9/2013 and rules framed in 2013, as have been referred to above. It is further contended that the petitioners' appointment may be considered to be irregular one, but cannot be said to be illegal, as they have come through the process of selection. Consequentially, they are entitled to get the benefit of contractual appointment in terms of G.A. Department resolution dtd. 17/9/2013 and subsequent Rules framed in 2013. It is further contended that even though the petitioners are employed through outsourcing agency, there exists master-servant relationship between the petitioners and the opposite parties, thereby, they are entitled to get regularization. More so, if the services of similarly situated persons have already been regularized, the petitioners cannot be discriminated. Therefore, their claim for regularization on contractual basis has to be considered by the Government in proper perspective. It is further contended that similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in Rashmi Rekha Dash v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.16906 of 2020, disposed of on 23/11/2021), wherein this Court, after dealing with a catena of decisions, passed an elaborate order extending the benefit. Therefore, the petitioners being stood on the same footing, in terms of the said judgment, the benefit should be extended to them.