MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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