SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ori) 214

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
P. Patnaik, J.
Smt. Kalpana Bal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opp.parties
W.P.(C) No.5248 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.5247 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.5249 of 2017
Decided On : 12-05-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Swapna Ku.Ojha, & S.K.Nayak, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :M/s. Goutam Mishra, D.K.Patra, A.Dash, A.S.Behera, J.Biswas & J.R.Deo Advocate.

Less than five years of service does not justify claims for regularization of contractual employment under relevant government rules.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Odisha Group C and Group D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 - Writ petitions for regularization of contractual employees - Petitioners appointed on a contractual basis as Assistant Commuter Operators, sought continuation until regularization, denied by authority citing outsourcing needs - Court reiterated principles concerning the regularization of contractual employees and ruled that service of less than five years is insufficient for claiming regularization. (Paras 2, 16, 29)

(B) Employment Law - Nature of Contractual Employment - Court found the appointment against a non-sanctioned post cannot lead to regularization; previous rulings cited reflect the need for a minimum service period to claim regular rights. (Paras 13, 21, 24)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners joined as Assistant Computer Operators based on a contractual appointment; their extension for more than two years was denied by the authority, who preferred outsourcing services to mitigate a financial crisis. The validity of their appointment and claims for regularization under the applicable rules was challenged.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners cannot claim regularization as they had not served a legally adequate time to confer any rights to continue or regularize their services under the applicable rules.

Issues: The court addressed the legality of replacing contractual workers and the grounds on which the petitioners sought regularization.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that less than five years of service does not justify a claim for regularization, highlighting prior rulings that emphasize employment against sanctioned posts as a requirement for legitimate claims.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed, with observations made about the authority's discretion regarding future contractual engagements.

Table of Content
1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT :

P.PATNAIK, J.

Relief sought for in the aforesaid writ applications are more or less similar, with the consent of the respective parties all the writ petitions have been heard analogously and are being disposed of in this common order.

2. The petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions have inter alia prayed for direction to the opposite parties to allow them to continue as Assistant Commuter Operator till their services are regularized as per the contractual appointment scheme, 2013 floated by the Government of Odisha.

3. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Registrar of Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (in short referred to as ‘OUAT’) for filling up of the post of Assistant Computer Operator ( hereinafter called as “ACO”) on contractual basis, the petitioners applied for the post in the prescribed form and in prescribed manner. After coming through the process of selection they were issued with order of appointment in their favour on 02.01.2015 calling upon them to join the post and accordingly, the petitioners joined on the said posts. Though the nomenclature of the term of appointment was contractual for a fixed term, but the petitioners were granted annual increment as per the Government of Odisha, General Administration Department Resolution dated 12.11.2013. Thereafter their appointments were extended giving one day artificial break with the same terms and conditions in the previous appointment order. Further, the service period of the petitioners were extended on the basis of recommendation for continuance of the petitioner by opposite party No.4, but to the utter surprise the recommendation of opposite party no.4 was returned by opposite party no.3 with remarks that ( it may be preferable if the work will be outsourced to a man power agency. It has been averred in the writ petition that Odisha Group C and Group D post (Contractual Appointment) Rule 2013 has come into effect with effect from 18.11.2013 wherein it has been envisaged that the contractual employees are to be regularized after completion of six years of satisfactory service. Since the OUAT being created and funded by the State of Odisha, the Government Rules are applicable to the OUAT. The OUAT has allowed extension of 13 nos of ACO those who have completed six years of service in office order dated 01.10.2016 and the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons have been turned down on the ground that outsourcing will be useful for the organization as evident from Annexur-7 to the writ application Though the post of A.C.O. is very much essential and one contractual employee cannot be replaced by any contractual employee but for the reasons best known to the opposite parties the extension has not been issued in favour of the petitioner which has compelled the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievance.

An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner with regard to applicability and adoption of General Administration Department Notification dated 12.11.2013 and in the said affidavit it has been inter alia mentioned that OUAT administration has not only accepted and adopted the Odisha Group C & Group D posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, but also followed the subsequent circular issued on 06.02.2015 basing on which various appointments have been made as per Annexures-8 and 9 series of the said affidavit. Further notification has been published in the daily The Samaj on 05.09.2017 vide Anneure-10 to the Additional Affidavit regarding engagement of Data Entry Operator which post is synonymous with Assistant Computer Operator with qualification.

Mr.S.K.Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as per the settled principle of law a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual casual employee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top