Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
Sri. Akshaya Kumar Mohanty – Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others – Opposite Parties
WPC Nos.34237 of 2020, 34240 of 2020, 34243 of 2020 & 34247 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Regularization - Teacher Educators - Orissa Group-B Post (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 - Rule 9(a), Rule 16(a), Rule 10 - The court held that the Rules, 2013 are applicable to the case of the Petitioners. The Petitioners having rendered 6 years of contractual service without any blemish, are entitled for regularization in service.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, appointed as Teacher Educators on a contractual basis, sought regularization of their services after completing six years of continuous service. The government rejected their claims citing the Orissa Group-B Post (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioners' engagement was permanent in nature and not temporary, as evidenced by the continuous plan scheme and the duration of their service. It also noted gross discrimination in remuneration between similarly placed employees.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Orissa Group-B Post (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 applied to the Petitioners' case and if they were entitled to regularization after completing six years of contractual service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules, 2013 were applicable to the Petitioners' case and that they were entitled to regularization after completing six years of contractual service, considering the permanent nature of their engagement and the disparity in remuneration.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the writ applications, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Opposite Party No.2 to issue necessary orders to regularize the services of the Petitioners as per rules with effect from the date of their completion of 6 years of contractual service with all service and financial benefits within a period of four months.
JUDGMENT :
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
1. All these writ petitions involve common facts and points of law. For convenience, they were heard together and have been disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Director, TE and SCERT (Opposite Party No.3) for the post of Teacher Educators for 13 old DIETs (District Institute of Education and Training) on contractual basis, The Petitioners submitted their applications and after having gone through the process of competitive examination, they were selected on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.9,300/-per month. It is stated that Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34237/2020 was posted in DIET, Khurda. Odisha, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34240/2020 was posted in DIET, Khurda, Odisha, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34243/2020 was posted in DIET, Remuna, Orissa and Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34247/2020 was posted in DIET, Dolipur, Odisha. Such appointment was for a period of one year to be renewed from time to time. While the matter stood thus, the Orissa Group-B Post (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 (in short ‘the Rules, 2013’) was framed. Rule 9(a) of the said Rules provides that a person appointed in a contractual post shall continue as such for a period of six years and Rule 16(a) provides that on the date of satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service, he shall be deemed to be regularly appointed. The Petitioners were also granted Grade Pay as provided under Rule 10 of the said Rules. By order dated 19.7.2017, the Government in G.A. Department clarified that Rules, 2013 would also be applicable to the recruitments for which advertisement was issued prior to commencement of the said Rules. Petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.34237/2020, 34240/2020, 34243/2020 and 34247/2020 completed six years of their continuous service on 19.04.2018, 19.06.2018, 19.04.2018 and 03.04.2018 respectively. As such, they claim to be regularized in service.
3. It is further stated that the Teacher Educators appointed in the year 2015 were given regular appointments, whereas Petitioners having been appointed since 2012 were not regularized. Petitioners submitted several representations to the Authorities but to no avail. They, therefore, approached the erstwhile Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.2116/2019.Vide order dated 17.7.2019, the Tribunal directed the Opposite Parties-Authorities to consider the grievance of the Petitioners within a period of two months. Pursuant to such direction, Opposite Party No.3 vide letter dated 28.10.2019 submitted a favourable proposal to the Secretary to Government in School and Mass Education Department (Opposite Party No.2), which was not considered. The Petitioner, therefore filed a contempt petition vide CONTC No.1167/2020 before this Court after the abolition of the Tribunal. This Court took up the matter and vide order dated 18.8.2020, directed the Opposite Party No.2 to act as per the direction of the Tribunal within a period of 15 days. Such order was also not complied, for which, the Petitioner filed another contempt application being CONTC No.4053/2020, which was again disposed of granting 15 days time to Opposite Party No.2 to comply with the order with intimation to the Registry so that on failure to comply the orders of this Court, the Registry shall issue suo-motu contempt proceeding against the Opposite Party No.2. Pursuant to this order, the Opposite Party No.2 vide Office Order dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) rejected the case of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such rejection, Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
