Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Orissa High Court Orders Retrospective Regularization, Slams State for Ignoring Supreme Court Directives

18 December 2024 11:56 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has directed the State Government to notionally regularize the service of a Nightwatchman-cum-Sweeper, Mr. Srinibash Das, retrospectively from February 20, 1992, without monetary benefits for the period until February 14, 2016. The Court, led by Justice Murahari Sri Raman, found the Government’s previous orders non-compliant with Supreme Court principles, particularly those established in the case of Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar.
Mr. Srinibash Das, employed initially as a casual/daily wage laborer, began his service on February 20, 1992, and later attained ‘temporary status’ on June 6, 2013. His service was formally regularized from February 15, 2016. However, Mr. Das sought notional regularization from his initial joining date to align with similar cases adjudicated favorably by higher courts. After the State Government’s rejection of his plea, he filed a writ petition challenging this decision.
The Court emphasized the importance of aligning state decisions with Supreme Court judgments, particularly those related to employee regularization. Justice Sri Raman noted, “The impugned order dated September 12, 2023, does not adhere to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar.”
The Court found that the Additional Chief Secretary’s order failed to comply with its earlier directive to consider Mr. Das’s representation in light of Supreme Court precedents. This non-compliance prompted the High Court to set aside the State’s rejection order and mandate a revised decision in line with established legal standards.
Justice Sri Raman’s judgment underscored the principle of non-arbitrariness in state actions. Citing the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of UP, he remarked, “Every holder of a public office acts as a trustee for the people, and all actions must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The judgment also touched upon the doctrine of functus officio, which limits the power of courts to alter their decisions once finalized. The Court clarified that only in instances of procedural unfairness or jurisdictional errors can such decisions be revisited.
Justice Sri Raman stated, “The service of the petitioner, having been regularized notionally from February 20, 1992, shall be taken for continuity of service and pensionary benefits, in alignment with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.”
This judgment by the Orissa High Court reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to uphold fairness and consistency in state employment matters. By mandating the retrospective regularization of Mr. Das’s service, the Court not only rectifies an individual grievance but also sets a precedent for similar cases, ensuring adherence to higher judicial principles and promoting equitable treatment of government employees.

 

Date of Decision: July 22, 2024
 

Latest Legal News