DEEPAK SUNA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, who are working as Sweeper/Labour on contract basis in the Regulated Market Committee, Bargarh (RMC), Bargarh, have preferred the present Writ Petition for quashing of the Order dtd. 9/9/2015 passed by the Collector-Cum-Chairman, RMC, Bargarh (Opposite Party No.5), as at Annexure-14, whereby, their representation for regularization of services against the vacant posts of Sweeper/Labour was rejected. Also a prayer has been made seeking for a direction to the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 to regularize their services and extend all such benefits, as is due and admissible to the said posts.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the State Government under the Orissa Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1956, shortly, Act, 1956, established Market Committee in every area in respect of agriculture produce. For superintendence over such Market Committee, by Notification in Official Gazette, a Board called the Orissa State Agricultural Market Board, shortly, OSAM Board, was established under Sec. 18-A of the Act, 1956. The OSAM Board vide Office Order No.4106 dtd. 3/8/2007, as at Annexure-1, intimated the Chairman/Secretary, RMC, Bargarh that the Board has been pleased to accord approval for creation of posts in different categories in favour of the RMC, Bargarh. Pursuant to the said Order, the RMC, Bargarh, vide its Office Order No.754 dtd. 26/8/2007, as at Annexure-2, requested to accord necessary approval for engagement of 45 numbers of contractual workers against vacant posts from amongst the existing NMRs. On 31/8/2007 proceeding of the Appointment and Promotion Sub-Committee of RMC, Bargarh was held in the Office of the Sub-Collector-Cum-Chairman, RMC, Bargarh, wherein it was decided to engage the present NMRs in the vacant posts on contractual basis after obtaining due approval from the OSAM Board. Thereafter, the OSAM Board, vide Order dtd. 20/9/2007, as at Annexure-5, intimated the RMC, Bargarh about the approval of the proceeding of the Sub-Committee of RMC, Bargarh by the Hon'ble Minister, Co-operation-Cum-Chairperson, OSAM Board and advised to observe due formalities.

(3.) Pursuant to the Resolution of the Appointment and Promotion Sub-Committee of RMC, Bargarh and approval of OSAM Board, Bhubaneswar, the Sub-Collector-Cum-Chairman, RMC, Bargarh vide Order No.956 dtd. 9/10/2007, as at Annexure-6, appointed the Petitioners against the vacant posts on contractual basis with consolidated salary. Since then, the Petitioners are discharging their services on contractual basis. When no step was taken for regularization of the services of the Petitioners, they made representation dtd. 5/8/2008 to the Chairman, RMC, Bargarh through the Secretary, RMC, Bargarh, as at Annexure-7. The Secretary, vide his letter dtd. 10/8/2008, submitted the said representation to the General Manager, OSAM Board, Bhubaneswar. On receipt of the said representation, the General Manager, OSAM Board, vide his letter dated 13. 08.2008, sought for certain clarification and justification from the Secretary, RMC, Bargarh, for regularization of services of the contractual workers. In response to the said letter, the Secretary, RMC, Bargarh, furnished necessary clarification assigning reasons for regularization of services of the Petitioners vide letter dtd. 22/9/2008, as at Annexure-10. It is the further case of the Petitioners that after proper verification/clarification given by the Secretary, RMC, Bargarh, the General Manager, OSAM Board approved the proposal of regularization of all 45 numbers of contractual workers including the Petitioners vide letter dtd. 27/9/2008, as at Annexure-11 and communicated to the Secretary, RMC, Bargarh regarding approval for regularization of 45 nos. of contractual workers by the Chairperson, OSAM Board indicating therein that after regularization of the said staff, the expenditure should be within the prescribed limit fixed by OSAM Board and the RMC, Bargarh was advised to observe due formalities in the said respect. Accordingly, the Petitioners' services were regularized. In spite of such regularization, the Petitioners were not treated as regular employees and denied regular scale of pay.