STATE OF ORISSA Vs. LALAT KISHORE MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Odisha and its functionaries, who were Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 before the Tribunal, have filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Order dtd. 29/1/2018 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No.2555(C) of 2001 under Annexure-3, by which the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application and directed the Authorities to regularize the service of Opposite Party No.1 within a period of two months.

(2.) Though Opposite Party No.1 has entered appearance through learned Advocates M/s H.P. Rath, A.K. Behera and R.P. Rath, but at the time of call none was present on his behalf. Even then, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, instead of giving another chance to Opposite Party No.1, this Court proceeded to decided the matter on the basis of the materials available on record, after hearing learned Counsel appearing for the State- Petitioners.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case, as is revealed from the record, is that Opposite Party No.1, who was Applicant in the O.A., was selected and appointed as Junior Clerk until further orders in Government Secondary Training School (W), Puri, by the present Petitioner No.3, vide Order dtd. 9/10/1985. Subsequently, such Order was modified by the Petitioner No.3 on 22/2/1986 allowing the Opposite Party No.1 to continue as Junior Clerk for a period of 89 days w.e.f. 12/1/1986. The said Order was followed by successive Orders allowing Opposite Party No.1 to continue as Junior Clerk for successive spells of 89 days with one day artificial break between such spell of 89 days. The Opposite Party No.1 continued in the said post against an existing vacancy, but the present Petitioner No.3 adopted the aforesaid method of appointment for successive spells of 89 days with one day break between each spell of 89 days solely with the intention to deny him regularization. After 30/4/1988, Petitioner No.3 allowed Opposite Party No.1 to continue in service without break and opened his Service Book and granted annual increments, thereby transferred and posted him as Junior Clerk to different Institutions and Offices within his administrative control and within the cadre of Junior Clerk like other regular Junior Clerks. The Opposite Party No.1 was also allowed to appear in the Junior Accounts Examination held at Collectorate, Puri, from 26/12/1990 to 28/12/1990 and he passed the said Examination. In the meantime, the Government in Education & Youth Services Department, vide letter dtd. 1/1/1991, issued instructions that the irregular recruitee should be given chance to appear in the next two consecutive Recruitment Examinationd. Pursuant thereto, Opposite Party No.1 requested Petitioner No.3 to sponsor his name for the Recruitment Examination, but his name was not sponsored, as because the examination he had already passed was far superior than the Recruitment Examination. Therefore, there was no necessity for him to appear in the Recruitment Examination in future. Then, in good faith and bona fide belief that his services will be regularized, he continued in service as Junior Clerk. He was allowed annual increments in the prescribed time scale of pay and revisions of pay under the relevant ORSP Rules from time to time. But, ultimately, when the same was not done, Opposite Party No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2555(C) of 2001, which was allowed on 29/1/2018 directing the Authorities for regularization of his service. Hence, this Writ Petition.