##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 26044 of 2022

Debashis Panigrahi (cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Petitioner Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

(cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

09.04.2026 Order No.

06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

(cid:0)·(cid:0),(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)L(cid:0)V(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)W(cid:0)K(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)H(cid:0)I(cid:0)R(cid:0)U(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)K(cid:0)X(cid:0)P(cid:0)E(cid:0)O(cid:0)\(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)S(cid:0)U(cid:0)D(cid:0)\(cid:0)H(cid:0)G(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)W(cid:0)K(cid:0)D(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)W(cid:0)K(cid:0)L may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass

the following reliefs;

i. To quash the order dt.5.9.2022 under Annexure-8 ii. To direct the direct the Opp.Parties to regularize the service of the petitioners as per the ratio decided in the case Secretary, State of Karnatak versus Umadevi (AIR 2006 SC 1806) and State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L.Keshari (2010) SCC 243 as well as the ratio decided in the case of Sagalilal Murmu versus State

of Odisha (2015 (Suppl-II)OLR 301).

// 2 //

iii. To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all financial and consequential benefits from the date of

regularization of his service.

iv. To pass such other orders /orders as would deem fit and proper;

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty (cid:0)E(cid:0)R(cid:0)X(cid:0)Q(cid:0)G(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)V(cid:0)K(cid:0)D(cid:0)O(cid:0)O(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0) H(cid:0)Y(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)S(cid:0)U(cid:0)D(cid:0)\(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)µ

4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 15.12.2006 by Opposite Party

No.3 under Annexure-10, Petitioner participated in the selection process for his engagement as against the post of Telemedicine Technician at Telemedicine Centre

located in SCB, Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. 4.1 . It is further contended that such step was taken to fill up the post in question basing on the letter

issued by the Government on 02.12.2006 and communication issued on 13.06.2007 under Annexure-1 and letter issued by the DMET, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide letter dtd.07.09.2007 under

Annexure-2.

4.2 . It is contended that in terms of the letter issued under Annexures-1 and 2 and the advertisement issued on 15.12.2006, Petitioner was appointed as a Telemedicine Technician on contractual basis vide order dtd.18.09.2007 under Annexure-3 of the Superintendent SCB, Medical College & Hospital,

Cuttack.

Page 2 of 11

// 3 //

4.3 . It is contended that on being so appointed as a contractual Telemedicine Technician vide order

dtd.18.09.2007 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was allowed to continue as such on contractual basis.

4.4. It is contended that taking into account the continuance of all such Telemedicine Technician in three different Hospitals of the State in the proceeding dtd.17.02.2010 under Annexure-4, a decision was taken to move the Government for creation of separate cadre for employees continuing under the Telemedicine

cadre.

4.5 . It is contended that in terms of the said decision of the Committee, no separate cadre was created by the Government. But thereafter the authorities of SCB, Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack while forwarding the required information with regard to contractual

engagement of the Petitioner for his regularization on completion of six years of service vide letter

dtd.01.08.2019 under Annexure-5, it was clearly indicated that Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis with his date of joining as 19.07.2007, vide order of appointment issued on 18.09.2007. In the said recommendation, it was also indicated that Petitioner has been appointed pursuant to