(1.) This writ appeal has been filed under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna assailing the order passed in W.P.(C) No.4863 of 2012 dtd.13.5.2014.
(2.) The brief facts of the case in short is that the writ petitioner, respondent herein was appointed as Junior Clerk / Typist in the office of opposite party no.3 vide order dtd.25.7.1994. The petitioner continued to work in the above post throughout practically having no break. The writ petitioner was given an appointment posted against a sanctioned post of Junior Clerk under the establishment of District Rural Development Authority (D.R.D.A.), Kendrapara as would be evident from the letter dtd.15.1.2005. The writ petitioner is continuing in service for the last 17 years being posted against a sanctioned post. However, proposal of regularization was sent before the Government for its consideration but no decision has been taken. Being aggrieved writ petition has been filed before this court. The order has been passed by the learned Single Judge of this court taking into consideration the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatak Vrs. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and others Vrs. M.L. Keshari and Others,2010 1 OrissaLR 982 and placing reliance upon these judgments and also on the order passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.8340 of 2012 in the case of Manoj Kumar Parida has directed the opposite party to take note of the judgments governing the field and consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-4 dtd.16.9.2011 in the light of the said judgments within reasonable period, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
(3.) The writ petitioner, respondent herein has appeared and contested the case by vehemently arguing out the case at length that this writ appeal is not worth to be considered as because the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has only directed the authority to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-4 dtd.16.9.2011 in the light of the said judgment within period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and as such the authority ought to have taken into consideration the grievance of the petitioner considering the fact that the writ petitioner is continuing on daily wage basis since the year 1994.