Orissa High Court
Rasmita Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 28 October, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
AFR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos. 24653 & 24487 of 2025 & W.P.(C)
Nos.17633, 19446, 21190 & 37213 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
..................
Rasmita Mishra .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate
Mr. A. Das, Advocate
Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing: 17.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:28.10.2025
// 2 //
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Since the issue involved in all these cases is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Director Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio Addl. Secretary to Housing & Urban Development, inviting applications to fill up 22 posts of Asst. Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis under BRGF Scheme on 14.07.2012, all the Petitioners with having the requisites qualification as prescribed, made their applications and participated in the selection process, which includes the written examination followed by viva-voce to be conducted by the Board constituted by the Department.
4.1. It is contended that on coming out successful in the selection process so initiated, Petitioners vide a common order issued on dtd.11.01.2013, were engaged as Asst. Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis with Page 2 of 29 // 3 // consolidated remuneration of Rs.9,300/- per month under the BRGF Scheme. In terms of such order of appointment issued on 11.01.2013, all the Petitioners joined in their respective place of posting and were allowed to continue.
4.2. It is also contended that on being so appointed, Petitioners were transferred from one Urban Local Body to another, vide different orders issued by the Department at different point of time.
4.3. It is also further contended that by the time Petitioners were so appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued on 14.07.2012, selection was conducted in terms of the provisions contained under the Orissa Local Fund Service Rules, 1975 (in short 1975 Rules). Not only that in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7 of the aforesaid 1975 Rules, selection and appointment was made by the Selection Board constituted by the Department. Rule-7 of the 1975 Rules reads as follows:-
"7. (1) Selection for appointment to the posts in the Service whether constituting of a Chairman and members as follows:
(a) The Director, Municipal Administration ...Chairman
(b) Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development in charge of Local Fund Service ... Member and Convenor of the Selection Board Page 3 of 29 // 4 //
(c) A Chairman of any Urban Local Body nominated by the Government ... Member
(d) Senior-most Executive Officer of the Urban Local Bodies (in the Odisha Administrative Service Class-1, Senior Branch) ... Member Provided that in the case of selection of candidates to the cadres of Executive Engineers, "The Assistant Executive Engineers) and Assistant Engineers, the Chief Engineer, Public Health, Odisha and in the case of selection of candidates to the cadre of Junior Engineers, the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Circle, Bhubaneswar shall also be a member of the Selection Board:
Provided further that the names of members specified in Clauses (c) and (d) shall be notified by the Government from time to time.
Note-For determining the senior-most Chairman, the longest continuous tenure as an elected Chairman of Municipal Councils and Notified Area Councils in the State shall be taken into account, where more than one Chairman have equal length of tenure, the senior-most shall be determined according to seniority in age.
(2) The Executive Officer of Municipality or Notified Area Council, as the case may be, shall on or before the 1st day of April of every year, report to the Director, Municipal Administration the probable number of vacancies in different cadres of service required to be filled up during the year.
(3) The Director, Municipal Administration after receipt of reports from Executive Officers shall call for applications for various posts in respect of which vacancies are likely to be filled up.
(4) For selection of candidates by direct recruitment, the Selection Board shall conduct a competitive examination including a viva voce test of all eligible candidates applying for post or posts in service.
(5) The selection of candidates for promotion to the posts in the cadres of the service shall be made by the Selection Board in the month of April of every year on the following basis:Page 4 of 29
// 5 //
(a) in respect of posts in the cadre of Junior Assistant, on the norms as may be prescribed by Government under Rule 6 (a) (iii)
(b) in respect of the posts in the cadres of Senior Assistant, Head Assistant and Superintendent, on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority.
(c) The eligibility for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer, shall be as follows:
(i) the Junior Engineers, who have completed at least ten years of service shall be considered for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineer and the promotion to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer shall be made from the rank of Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, respectively, with a minimum experience of one year in the respective rank.)
(ii) the zone of consideration shall be three times the number of vacancies; and
(iii) the promotion shall be on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority.] (6) The Selection Board shall for the purpose of appointment to different cadres in the service prepare lists of eligible candidates arranged in order of merit and forward the same to the Director, Municipal Administration for allotment of different Urban local Bodies.
(7) The list of candidates prepared under Sub-rule (6) shall remain in force for one year.]".
4.4. A further submission was also made that as provided under Rule-6(d) of the Rules, thirty-three per cent of the post of Asst. Engineer shall be filled up by way of promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineer and the remaining sixty seven percent of the posts by direct recruitment. Rules-6(d) of the Rules reads as follows:-
Page 5 of 29// 6 // "[6(d) Thirty-three per cent of the posts of Assistant Engineer shall be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers and the remaining sixty seven percent of the posts by direct recruitment]".
4.5. It is accordingly contended that process of selection pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department on 14.07.2012, basing on which Petitioners were appointed vide order dtd.11.01.2013, was so conducted in terms of the provisions contained under the aforesaid 1975 Rules.
4.6. It is further contended that even though the scheme under which Petitioners were appointed vide order dtd.11.01.2013 i.e. BRGF was closed w.e.f. April, 2015, but on the face of such closure of the scheme, Petitioners were allowed to continue as before by the Department as against the post of Asst. Engineer now designated as Asst. Executive Engineer. Not only that on being so allowed to continue under the Department even after closure of the scheme, Petitioners were extended with the benefit of the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post of Asst. Engineer now designated as Asst. Executive Engineer. Petitioners were also put under tranfer to different urban local bodies of the State at different point of time as like regular employees. However, on the face of such long continuance on contractual basis with extension of the minimum of the pay scale in the pay scale attached to the post of Asst. Engineer, when Petitioners were not Page 6 of 29 // 7 // regularized in their services, Petitioners approached this Court by filing different Writ Petitions.
4.7. This Court while disposing the Writ Petitions so filed when directed the Secretary of the Department-
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the claim of the Petitioners, such claim was rejected vide different orders so impugned in the present batch of Writ Petitions inter alia on the principal ground that, Petitioners being degree Engineers and their posts having coming under Level-10 and above entry into Government service of that level is permissible, only through Orissa Public Service Commission. Since during continuance of the Petitioners and in terms of the provisions contained under Orissa Municipal Engineering Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016 ( in short 2016 Rules), which came into force w.e.f. 24.10.2016, post of Asst. Engineer now designated as Asst. Executive Engineer are to be filled up through direct recruitment to be made by the Orissa Public Service Commission, Petitioners' claim was rejected vide different orders, so impugned in the present batch of Writ Petitions.
4.8. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners vehemently contended that by the time Petitioners were so appointed on contractual basis vide order dtd.11.01.2013, such appointments were made in Page 7 of 29 // 8 // terms of the provisions contained under the 1975 Rules. Since Petitioners were so appointed in terms of the provisions contained under the 1975 Rules, rejection of the Petitioners' claim relying on the provisions contained under the 2016 Rules is per se illegal and stipulation contained in 2016 Rules is not applicable to the claim of the Petitioners.
4.9. It is also contended that Junior Engineers engaged under the Scheme along with the Petitioners were regularized after closure of the scheme and while continuing under the Department. Since Junior Engineers engaged under the self-same Scheme even after closure of the Scheme were not only allowed to continue but also regularized, rejection of the Petitioners' claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.10. It is also contended that even though claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization has been rejected inter alia on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under the 2016 Rules, they cannot be regularized and they have to be recruited through OPSC, but vide different orders issued by different Departments of the Government similarly situated Asst. Engineers now designated as Asst. Executive Engineers have been regularized vide Notification dtd.20.05.2022 of the Government in the Page 8 of 29 // 9 // Department of Water Resources, and Notification dtd. 21.04.2022 of the Works Department. Not only that similarly situated candidates having been selected by the selection board constituted under Rule-7 of the 1975 Rules and appointed as Asst. Engineer (Civil) were regularized vide order dtd.18.01.2013 of the Housing & Urban Development Department and vide orders issued on 01.06.2015 and 02.06.2017.
4.11. It is accordingly contended by the learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners that in view of such long continuance w.e.f. 11.01.2013 on contractual basis and such appointment having been made in accordance with the provisions contained under 1975 Rules as well as by facing due recruitment process, the ground on which claim of the Petitioners has been rejected vide different orders issued by the Department, are not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.12. It is also contended that at present there are around 49 vacant post of Asst. Executive Engineer available in the Housing & Urban Development Department and out of the 22 Asst. Engineers so engaged vide order dtd.11.01.2013 including the Petitioners, 6 of them have already left leaving the present batch of 16 Petitioners.
4.13. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the vacancy available in the Department vis-à-
Page 9 of 29// 10 // vis the continuance of the present 16 nos. of Petitioners, Petitioners can very well be regularized as against those vacant posts.
4.14. A further submission was also made that claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization though was recommended by the concerned Urban Local Bodies, but such recommendations since were regretted by the Finance Department as well as GA & PG Department, claim of the Petitioners was rejected by the Housing & Urban Development Department vide the impugned orders.
4.15. It is also contended that in view of the continuance of the Petitioners w.e.f. 11.01.2013 till date on contractual basis and extensioin of the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post with due revision at different point of time, Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chander Mohan Negi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2020 (1) OLR
-SC-865. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-13 of the said judgment held as follows:-
"13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have Page 10 of 29 // 11 // completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed teachers under the various schemes benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code 1985. The judgments relied on by learned counsel Sri Prashant Bhushan also would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein for the reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before circumstances of these cases, we are of the that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meagre salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make back door entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply affidavit. Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.".
4.16. Reliance was placed to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vrs. Union of Page 11 of 29 // 12 // India and Others. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-25 of the said judgment held as follows:-
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack Page 12 of 29 // 13 // of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
4.17. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another, (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025). Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-11, 16 to 20 of the said judgment held as follows:-
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v.
Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to Page 13 of 29 // 14 // justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary"
employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the Page 14 of 29 // 15 // foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
xxx xxx xxx
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.Page 15 of 29
// 16 //
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts:
All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or Page 16 of 29 // 17 // equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and
(b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv.Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which Page 17 of 29 // 18 // further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4.18. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-15 & 18 of the said judgment held as follows:-
"15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records--despite directions to do so--allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinit "temporary"
employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:
Page 18 of 29// 19 // "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
.........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to be evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a Page 19 of 29 // 20 // systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
xxx xxx xxx
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-
wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the Page 20 of 29 // 21 // aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
4.19. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 (1) SCR 1230.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-2, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
"2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42692 of 2001, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal's judgment negated the appellants' plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed. Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The appellants have approached this Court arguing that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to Page 21 of 29 // 22 // recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were originally appointed for. Furthermore, their promotion by a regularly constituted Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they underwent, and the continuous nature of their service for over a quarter of a century underscored their argument for regularization and that the High Court has incorrectly applied the principles from the case of Uma Devi (supra) to their situation.
5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot bemerely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.
xxx xxx xxx
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 :
AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 Page 22 of 29 // 23 // SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.
The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.
5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission taking into account the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed.
5.1. It is the main contention of the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State while supporting the Page 23 of 29 // 24 // impugned rejection that since Petitioners were engaged under the Scheme and the Scheme was closed w.e.f. April, 2015, even though Petitioners were allowed to continue under the Department, but since their very engagement is under a Scheme, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization.
5.2. It is also contended that in view of the provisions contained under the 2016 Rules, entry into Government service in Level-10 as Degree Engineer is only through OPSC and the Petitioners since admittedly were selected by the Selection Board constituted by the Department under the 1975 Rules, Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation and the same has been rightly rejected. The stand taken in Para-7 to 11 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
"7. That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-3, 4 & 5 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that Backward Region Grant Funds (BRGF) Scheme was launched by Government of India in the year 2013 and due to acute shortage of Technical Experts in ULBs, appointment orders were issued in favour of 22 numbers of candidates including the present petitioner as Assistant Engineers BRGF (Contractual) with consolidated remuneration of Rs.9300/- per month vide H.&U.D. Department Order No.2426/HUD, dtd. 11.01.2013 under Annexure - 4 of the writ Petition. The appointment was made on the following terms and conditions along with others:
(i) The posts created under this scheme are co-terminus with the project and on closure of the project; the posts shall cease to exist automatically.Page 24 of 29
// 25 //
(ii) The posts have been created thy Finance Department vide their UOR No. 3134/PSF, dtd. 02.07.2008.
(iii) Their engagement is within the purview of Finance Department Circular No. 55764, dtd. 31.12.2004.
(iv) Their Contractual engagement is valid up to 28.02.2013 and further renewal of contract can be considered by Government after receipt of satisfactory performance report from concerned Executive Officer/Municipal Commissioner.
(v) The engagement is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason whatever."
8. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that though the Backward Region Grant Funds (BRGF) scheme funding was closed in 2015, out of 22, 16 Assistant Engineers, including the present petitioner is still working in different Urban Local Bodies under the administrative control of this Department till now, since they have never approached this Department for their dis-engagement and other 6 Assistant Engineers have left their job getting better job opportunities.
9. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-7 to 11 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the proposal for regularization of aforesaid 16 Assistant Engineers was referred to the Finance Department and the G.A. & PG. Department. The proposal for regularization was regretted on the following grounds:
i. The entry route to the Government Service of the Level
10 (Level-10 for Degree Engineers) is only through OPSC.
ii. GA Department Resolution No.4591, dt. 15.02.2014 is not applicable for regularization of the Assistant Engineers.
iii. Since the posts created under this scheme are co- terminus with the project and on the closure of the project, the posts have been ceased to exist automatically.
iv. The regularization of JEs working in the same scheme has nothing to do with the regularization of AEs Page 25 of 29 // 26 // as the fact remains that, the persons concerned being degree Engineers relates to posts in Level-10 and above. The entry route to Government service of that Level is only through OPSC. The GAD Circulars deal with posts in Level-9 and below.
V. The rules framed under article 309 of the Constitution of India need to be followed and any deviation will be unwarranted and Constitution of India 10 That the averments made in paragraph-12 of the writ petition are misleading and not correct and hence denied. It is humbly submitted that the Water Resources Department and Works Department have not regularized the Services Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide Annexure-8, 9 & 10. It appears from those Annexures that Works Department has revised the remuneration of the Woks Charged Assistant Engineers from Level-10 to Level-12 along with change of designation from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer.
11. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph- 13 & 14 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that up-gradation of 25 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) was sanctioned Order No.13960/HUD,dtd.01.06.2015. Accordingly, those vide H&UD who were continuing as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in regular basis since long were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) consequent upon such up-gradation. The post created under BRGF scheme in which the petitioner was continuing has already ceased automatically after closure of the project as it was a co-terminus project and the petitioner was working on contractual basis and not on regular basis".
5.3. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State accordingly contended that even though Petitioners after closure of the scheme were allowed to continue under the Department and are continuing as such till date, but taking into account their initial nature of engagement which is under a scheme, they do not have any vested right to get the benefit of regularization.
Page 26 of 29// 27 // It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularisation has been rightly rejected in each of the cases and it requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that all the Petitioners with having the requisite qualification and pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department on 14.07.2012, participated in the selection process as against the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil). On coming out successful in the selection process, all the Petitioners were appointed as Asst. Engineer vide a common order issued on dtd.11.01.2013. Even though Petitioners were all engaged under the Scheme, but it is not disputed that after closure of the Scheme w.e.f. April, 2015, Petitioners were not only allowed to continue, but also they were extended with the benefit of the minimum of the pay scale as applicable to the post of Asst. Engineer now designated as Asst. Executive Engineer with due revision.
6.1. It is also not disputed that the Junior Engineers engaged under the self-same BRGF Scheme, even after closure of the Scheme, were not only allowed to continue, but also they have been regularized.
Page 27 of 29// 28 // 6.2. It is also not disputed that after being so appointed under the Scheme and even after closure of the Scheme, Petitioners have been put under transfer to different Urban Local Bodies of the State.
6.3. It is also found that Petitioners were engaged in terms of the advertisement issued on 14.07.2012 and order of appointment issued on dtd.11.01.2013. The selection and appointment was made in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-6(d) read with Rule-7 of the 1975 Rules. Since the Petitioners were ell engaged in terms of the provisions contained under the aforesaid 1975 Rules by facing due recruitment process, as per the considered view of this Court the provisions contained under the 2016 Rules cannot be made applicable to the claim of the Petitioners.
6.4. Not only that similarly situated Asst. Engineers now designated as Asst. Executive Engineers have been regularized vide different orders issued by different Departments of the Government, which includes Housing & Urban Development Department. Taking into account the admitted position that Petitioners were all engaged by facing due recruitment process in accordance with the 1975 Rules and benefit of regularization extended in favour of the Junior Engineers engaged under the Scheme and the order of regularization issued by different Departments of the Page 28 of 29 // 29 // Government including Housing & Urban Development Department, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which claim of the Petitioners has been rejected vide the impugned orders in the present batch of Writ Petitions are not sustainable in the eye of law. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Chander Mohan Negi, Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh, & Vinod Kumar, this Court is of the view that Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization.
6.5. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned orders in the present batch of Writ Petitions so issued by the Department-Opposite Party No.1 directs the Department of Housing & Urban Development Department to regularize the services of the Petitioners against the vacant post of Asst. Executive Engineer. This Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to pass an appropriate order as directed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases.
Signature Not Verified (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Judge Reason: Authentication Dated the 28th October, 2025/Subrat Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Nov-2025 16:35:14 Page 29 of 29