Santosh Kumar Muduli vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the petitioners, despite being engaged through outsourcing agencies, were discharging duties and responsibilities that were governmental in nature, for the Government, of the Government, and by the Government. The Court found that their engagement was with the due approval of the Government, as evidenced by the procurement of computers and DEOs in 2006-07, and the subsequent selection process conducted by the outsourcing agencies. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in Umadevi (3), M.L. Keshari, and Sheo Narain Nagar, stating that even if the appointments were irregular, they were entitled to the benefits of contractual appointment as per the resolution dated 17.09.2013 or the 2013 Rules. The Court noted that the petitioners could not be discriminated against compared to DEOs in the CT & GST Department who were regularized following a similar legal battle. Therefore, the Court directed that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of contractual appointment as per the resolution dated 17.09.2013 or be brought over to the contractual establishment under the 2013 Rules, at par with the employees absorbed in the CT&GST Department. These benefits are to be extended expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Facts

The petitioners, Rashmi Rekha Dash and Santosh Kumar Muduli & another, are working as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) in the Local Fund Audit Organisation under the Finance Department of the State of Odisha. They seek regularization of their services with effect from 17.09.2013, in the scale of pay PB-1-5200-20200/- + GP Rs.1900/-, with usual allowances, on completion of six years of satisfactory service. They argue that they have been performing governmental duties and should be treated similarly to other outsourced contractual DEOs in various State Government Departments who have been regularized. The State of Odisha is the opposite party. The petitioners were initially engaged through an outsourcing agency, M/s Mind Mart, and subsequently through M/s Bharat Security Services, after the former's contract expired. Their engagement was based on a selection process and continued uninterruptedly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, engaged as Data Entry Operators through outsourcing agencies but discharging governmental duties, are entitled to regularization of their services in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 or the 2013 Rules governing contractual appointments? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contend that they have been discharging duties akin to State Government employees, even though paid through outsourcing agencies. They rely on the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and argue that they should be granted regularization and consequential benefits, similar to similarly situated DEOs in other departments, citing the case of Jatin Kumar Das and others, whose regularization was upheld by the Tribunal and subsequently by this Court. They argue that denying them these benefits would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State of Odisha. However, the context suggests the State's position would likely be that the petitioners were engaged through outsourcing and thus not direct employees entitled to regularization under the State's service rules.