Tapan Kumar Sahu vs. The Comnr. CT. And GST, Odisha

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is similarly situated to Petitioner No. 9, Uma Sankar Mohapatra, in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, based on the nature of their engagement. The Court noted that Uma Sankar Mohapatra's engagement involved facing an advertisement and interview, and the instruction provided indicated the present petitioner's engagement was similar. Since the order in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, which allowed regularization and consequential benefits, was upheld by the Apex Court, the present petitioner is also eligible and entitled to the same benefits. The Court found the reasons for rejection in the impugned order to be not in consonance with the rulings of the Supreme Court and this Court. Therefore, the impugned order dated August 7, 2021, to the extent it relates to the petitioner, was quashed. The Writ Petition was disposed of in light of the judgment dated August 16, 2024, in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, directing consideration for regularization and consequential benefits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tapan Kumar Sahu, was engaged as a contractual Driver in 2009 and continued with extensions. He, along with 17 others, filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.22689 of 2020) seeking regularization of services. This court initially directed consideration for regularization, but the State appealed. The appellate court set aside the regularization direction and allowed petitioners to represent their claims. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha (Opposite Party No. 1) on August 7, 2021, citing non-compliance with recruitment procedures and reservation principles. Eleven of these petitioners filed another writ petition (W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021), which was allowed, directing regularization and consequential benefits. This order was upheld by a Writ Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. The petitioner in the present writ petition claims to be similarly situated to those in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of service in light of the previous orders of this Court and the Apex Court, and if so, whether the impugned order rejecting his claim is sustainable? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Keshari, and the applicability of the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argues that his engagement is similar to that of Petitioner No. 9, Uma Sankar Mohapatra, in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, whose claim for regularization was allowed and upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, he is entitled to similar benefits and the impugned order should be quashed. Revenue/State's contentions: The Opposite Parties contend that the petitioner's initial engagement was without following the proper recruitment procedure and the principle of reservation, as per ORV Rules. They argue that the petitioner is not similarly situated to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021 and that his claim was rightly rejected.