Dharmajit Mishra vs. The Comnr. Of 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. The Court noted that Uma Sankar Mohapatra was engaged after facing an advertisement and interview, and the instruction provided indicated that the present petitioner's engagement was also similar. Since the order in the case of Uma Sankar Mohapatra and others was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Court found that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to the benefit of that order. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated August 7, 2021, insofar as it related to the petitioner, and disposed of the Writ Petition in light of the judgment dated August 16, 2024, in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021. The ratio decidendi is that if an employee's engagement is found to be similar to that of other employees whose regularization claims have been upheld by higher courts, then the similarly situated employee is also entitled to regularization.

Facts

The petitioner, Dharmajit Mishra, was engaged as a contractual Driver from June 29, 2009. He continued in service with extensions. After his service was not regularized, he, along with 17 others, filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 22689 of 2020) seeking regularization. This court directed the authorities to consider their regularization based on Supreme Court judgments and a government resolution. The State appealed, and the appellate court set aside the regularization direction, allowing petitioners to represent their claims for regularization. The petitioner's representation was rejected on August 7, 2021, citing non-compliance with recruitment procedures and reservation rules. Subsequently, 11 of these petitioners filed another writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021), which was allowed, directing regularization. This order was upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner in the present case claims to be similarly situated to those in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's claim for regularization of service is covered by the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, which was upheld by the Supreme Court? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the previous judgments and the similarity of engagement procedures). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his engagement was similar to that of Petitioner No. 9, Uma Sankar Mohapatra, in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021. Since the claim of Uma Sankar Mohapatra and others was allowed and upheld by the Supreme Court, the petitioner, being similarly situated, is entitled to the same benefit and the impugned order rejecting his claim should be quashed. Revenue/State's Contention: The Opposite Parties contended that the petitioner's initial engagement was without following any recruitment process or the principle of reservation, and therefore, his claim for regularization was rightly rejected. They argued that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021 were not similarly situated to the present petitioner. They relied on the reasoning in the impugned order and the counter-affidavit filed.