TRAI Issuing Directions To Enforce Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' Of Dispute, Does Not Usurp TDSAT's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Candidate Can Challenge Selection Process After Participating If Arbitrariness Is Writ Large Or Rules Changed Mid-Way: Supreme Court Selection Committee Cannot Superimpose Additional Cut-Off Marks Not Prescribed In Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Must Ordinarily Approach High Court First For Quashing FIRs, Article 32 Is For Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Club Multiple FIRs In Cyber Fraud Case, Says Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Constitute 'Same Transaction' Layman Borrowers Not Liable For Forgery If Even Bank's Legal Experts Failed To Detect Fabrication In Title Deeds: Allahabad High Court Kerala High Court Orders Travancore Devaswom Board To Digitise Sabarimala Asset Inventory, Says Current Records Resemble 'Betel Shop' Ledger Second Husband In Void Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry Death Under Section 80 BNS: Allahabad High Court Cohabitation Of Barely 3 Months Insufficient To Trigger Presumption Of Live-In Relationship For Maintenance: Bombay High Court SC/ST Act Case Filed By Suspended Head Constable To 'Wreck Vengeance' Against Investigating Officers Quashed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-Compliance With Order For Production Of Documents Under O.11 R.14 CPC Cannot Warrant Striking Off Defence: Calcutta High Court Omission To Put Dying Declaration To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Makes It Inadmissible, But Doesn't Demolish Entire Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Victim's Appeal Against Magistrate's Acquittal Order Lies Before Sessions Court Under Section 413 BNSS: Gujarat High Court 'Fraud And Justice Cannot Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Quashes 30-Year-Old Land Acquisition After Records Of Compensation Go Missing Electricity Authorities Cannot Determine Civil Liability For Energy Theft Under Section 135; Only Special Court Empowered: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Exploit Employees By Keeping Them On Part-Time Basis For Decades To Deny Old Pension Scheme: Punjab & Haryana HC

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