The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha vs. Sanatan Bal

Facts

The State of Odisha, through various Collectors and the Commissioner of CT & GST, appealed orders passed by a learned Single Judge in six writ petitions. The respondents in these appeals were petitioners in the writ petitions, seeking regularization of their services after more than eight years of continuous service. They relied on a Government Circular and Supreme Court judgments in "State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)" and "State of Karnataka and others v. M.L.Kesari and others". The learned Single Judge, on the first date of listing, without affording the appellants an opportunity to file counter-affidavits, directed the regularization of the petitioners' services and consequential benefits, citing the aforementioned judgments and a Government Resolution dated 17.9.2013. The appellants contended that the Single Judge's orders were erroneous as they lacked a positive finding for regularization and were issued without proper procedural opportunity.

Held

The High Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the specific directions for regularization of services and granting of consequential service benefits. The Court reasoned that disposing of the cases on the first date of listing without a detailed examination of the merits and without affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity to file counter-affidavits was not proper. The Court found that writs of mandamus were issued directing regularization without a proper opportunity for the appellants to present their case and without a positive finding that the petitioners were entitled to regularization. Consequently, the Court directed the appellants to consider the representations of the respondents. The respondents were given liberty to file detailed representations within twenty-one days, which the authorities were to consider within one month thereafter, providing a reasoned order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The Court emphasized that this consideration should be in light of the settled principles of law as stated by the Supreme Court in the cited judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing the regularization of the petitioners' services without affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity to file counter-affidavits and without a positive finding that the petitioners were entitled to regularization based on the facts and applicable law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in issuing a writ of mandamus for regularization and consequential service benefits solely based on the cited Supreme Court judgments and a Government Resolution, without a detailed examination of the specific facts and circumstances of each case? Arguments for Appellants (State of Odisha): The learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the Single Judge's orders were erroneous because they directed regularization without a positive finding that the petitioners were entitled to it as per the cited precedents. Furthermore, issuing a mandamus for regularization without giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity to file counter-affidavits was contrary to standard procedure. Arguments for Respondents (Petitioners): The learned counsel for the respondents argued at length, justifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge.