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

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is similarly situated to Petitioner No.11, Biswajit Parida, in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021. The Court found that the petitioner's engagement was similar to that of Biswajit Parida, who was selected based on an advertisement and interview. Since the order passed in the case of Biswajit Parida and others in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021 was upheld by the Apex Court, the present petitioner, being similarly situated, is also eligible and entitled to the benefit of that order. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 07.08.2021, insofar as it related to the petitioner, and disposed of the Writ Petition in light of the judgment dated 16.08.2024 in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021. The ratio decidendi is that individuals engaged in similar contractual capacities, where their peers have successfully sought regularization based on established legal precedents and judicial pronouncements, are entitled to similar relief, especially when the initial engagement process is found to be comparable.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanatan Bal, was engaged as a contractual Driver in 2010 and continued with extensions. He, along with 17 others, sought regularization of services in W.P.(C) No.22689 of 2020. This Court initially directed regularization, but the State appealed. In the Writ Appeal, the direction for regularization was set aside, and petitioners were permitted to represent their claims to the Opposite Parties, considering Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Commissioner of CT and GST on 07.08.2021 (Annexure-15), citing non-compliance with recruitment procedures and reservation principles. Subsequently, 11 of the original petitioners challenged this rejection in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021, which was allowed, and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner in the present writ petition claims to be similarly situated.

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 principle of parity and similarity of engagement). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that his engagement is similar to that of Petitioner No.11, Biswajit Parida, in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021, who was selected based on an advertisement and interview. Therefore, the petitioner is similarly situated and entitled to the same benefits as granted in the aforementioned writ petition, which has been upheld by the Apex Court. The impugned order rejecting his claim should be quashed. Revenue/State's Contention: The Opposite Parties contend that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021 are not similarly situated to the present petitioner. They argue that the petitioner's initial engagement was without a proper recruitment process and without following the principle of reservation, thus his claim was rightly rejected by the impugned order dated 07.08.2021.