Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Ors vs Krushna Takri on 12 May, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2473 of 2024
State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Appellants
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
-versus-
Krushna Takri .... Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 12.05.2026
07. The State and its Officials are invoking the Intra-Court Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 21.09.2021 whereby Respondent-Employee's W.P.(C) No.29103 of 2021 having been allowed, the following relief has been accorded to him:-
"5. In that view of the matter, since the Petitioner is continuing as DLR Employee and completed 24 years of service, in the meantime and even though his appointment is irregular, he should be regularised in service in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi and M.L. Keshari (supra), as well as Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bishar and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.
6. In view of such position, the Opposite Parties are directed to regularise the service of the Petitioner and grant all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of an authenticated/certified copy of this order."
2. The Appeal is filed after brooking a delay of 1055 days. Since the said Application was allowed earlier, subject to payment of money quantified in a sum of ₹1,00,000/-, the delay would fall into insignificance.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the Appellant as of now has put in 29 years of long & spotless service as a Night Watch Man.
4. The vehement submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned AGA that in the absence of a sanctioned post, the regularisation cannot be claimed is very difficult to countenance if a person works for decades, contention of the kind is liable to be rejected keeping in view the Apex Court decision in Jaggo vs. Union of India, (2024) SCC OnLine SC. The other contentions that it was a case of backdoor entry, there being no advertisement also will meet the same fate.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Employee draws our attention to Annexure-6 series to the Writ Petition papers wherein similarly circumstanced employees have been already regularised and therefore there cannot be a discriminatory treatment of his client. We agree with this view.
6. Learned Single Judge having considered all aspects of the matter more particularly the decision in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1 and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Keshari and Others, 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982 has granted relief to the Respondent-Employee. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Page 2 of 3In the above circumstances, this Appeal is dismissed coupled with a direction to give effect to the order of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit of three (3) months without driving the sole employee to avoidable litigation process further.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AK Pradhan/Priyanka Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 14-May-2026 19:11:40 Page 3 of 3