INDRA KISHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these petitions were employed as Nominal Muster Roll workers for the irrigation work undertaken by opposite party No. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that they had been so engaged by the Government since 1980-81 and their services came to be terminated on 30-9-1990. They have challenged the said termination in these petitions and have prayed for regularisation of their services. They have also prayed for direction that they should be treated as permanent employees of the opposite parties.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew our attention to the decisions of this Court in O.J.C. No. 40 of 1991 decided on 17-9-1991 where similarly situated workers of Lahunipara Sub-division itself were granted the relief of regularisation. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in O.J.C. No. 3552 of 1990 (Manbodh Pradhan v. State of Orissa) and other connected petitions decided on 7-5-1991, wherein also the relief of regularisation was granted. The learned counsel lastly relied upon the decision of this Court in Prabhu Sankar Babu v. State of Orissa and others, (1993 (2) O.L.R. 136). In that case, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2281, 2282, 2283, 2284, 2285,2286, 2287 and 2289 of 1992 reported in 1992 (II) O.L.R. (S.C.) 515, this Court directed regularisation of the workman who had put in five years of service.

(3.) In all these cases, this Court did direct the authorities to regularise the services of the workmen. But, in cur opinion, in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 789, and State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 2130, it would not be proper to grant the relief of regularisation straight away. In the Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union's case, the Supreme Court has taken note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction for regularisation of workmen on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days has been leading. The Supreme Court in that case has pointed out therein the other injurious effects which follow as a result of indiscriminate regularisation. In the case of Piara Singh, the Supreme Court has observed as below :