RAMESH CHANDRA BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the present writ application seek to challenge the action of the Opposite Parties in taking them over to the work-charged establishment instead of regularizing their services. According to the petitioners, who claim to have been engaged as NMR/HR workers between 1980-1993, they are entitled to be regularized in service in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

(3.) A common counter has been filed on behalf of all the Opposite Parties wherein the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services has been sought to be repelled on the ground that they are not entitled to such benefit. The Opposite Parties have referred to the Work-Charged Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1974 (for short, "the Instructions 1974"), Finance Department Resolution dtd. 15/5/1997 and Water Resources Department Resolution dtd. 7/9/1995 to state that it is the policy decision of the Government as to how to regularize NMR/DLR and work-charged employees, which is reflected in the rules and circulars noted above. Accordingly, the petitioners have been brought over to the work-charged establishment and being subjected to the service conditions provided in the Instructions 1974 have accepted the same without offering any challenge since the year 2009. It is, therefore, stated that the petitioners cannot seek a relief de hors the service conditions provided in Instructions 1974. Referring to the provision of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, it is further stated that in so far as the claim for pensionary benefits is concerned, the petitioners having been brought over to the work-charged establishment shall be governed under Rule 18(3) thereof, which provides for grant of minimum pension to a work-charged employee who has discharged service for five years or more. It is also stated that there is no provision in the Instructions 1974 to bring the work-charged employees to the regular establishment. The claim of the petitioners is described as misconceived on the ground that they have made a backdoor entry into Government service without being sponsored by the employment exchange or undergoing any recruitment process. It is finally stated that as per Finance Department resolution dtd. 15/5/1997, which is an existing scheme for absorption in regular establishment in supersession of all previous resolutions, a work-charged employee cannot claim the benefit of a regular employee. Therefore, there is no scope of regularization of such employees particularly, after the judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi.