Radheshyam Bhoi 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, whose claim for regularization was allowed and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court found that the nature of engagement of the present petitioner was similar to that of Uma Sankar Mohapatra, who had faced an advertisement and interview process. Consequently, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to the benefit of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021. The Court quashed the impugned order dated August 7, 2021, in so far as it related to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that if an employee's engagement is found to be similar in nature to that of another employee whose regularization claim has been upheld by the Supreme Court, the similarly situated employee is also entitled to the same relief, notwithstanding initial procedural irregularities in engagement, provided the subsequent claim is considered in light of established legal precedents. The Writ Petition was disposed of in light of the judgment dated August 16, 2024, in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021.

Facts

The petitioner, Radheshyam Bhoi, was engaged as a temporary Driver in 2008 and subsequently as a contractual driver against a sanctioned post in 2011. Despite continued service with extensions, his services were not regularized. He, along with others, filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 22689 of 2020) seeking regularization, which was initially directed by the Court. However, this direction was set aside by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 79 of 2021, allowing petitioners to represent for regularization. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha, on August 7, 2021, citing non-compliance with recruitment procedures and reservation principles. Eleven petitioners from the original batch challenged this rejection in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, which was allowed, and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

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, considering the petitioner's engagement was without following due recruitment procedure and reservation principles? 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, whose claim for regularization was allowed and upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, the petitioner is similarly situated and entitled to the same benefit, with the impugned order being quashed. Revenue/State's Contention: The Opposite Parties (Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha, and others) contended that the petitioner's engagement was without facing any recruitment process and without following the principle of reservation. They argued that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021 were not similarly situated as the present petitioner, and thus, the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected by the impugned order.