Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Another vs Pramod Kumar Padhi And on 9 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1829 OF 2025
State of Odisha and another .... Appellants
-versus-
Pramod Kumar Padhi and .... Respondents
Others
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellants - Mr. S. K. Jee, AGA
For Respondents - Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate
---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 09.03.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed by the State and its functionaries challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.16511 of 2021, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the application of the Respondents-employees and directed the Appellants to regularise the contractual engagement of the Respondents under the 2013 Rules with effect from 01.07.2016 against the vacant posts from the date such posts were created by the Government of Odisha, along with all consequential service and financial benefits, within a period of eight weeks.
2. The background facts of the case are that the State of Odisha established Odisha Bhawan at Mumbai, operated by the Home Department, Government of Odisha, in the year 2010. For its functioning, the Government of Odisha, vide Letter No.4416 dated 02.02.2010, requested the Principal, Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, VSS Nagar, Bhubaneswar to sponsor suitable candidates for appointment to different posts in the said Odisha Bhawan at Mumbai. Pursuant to such communication, several names were sponsored by the Institute and the Additional Secretary to Government in the Home Department issued a letter dated 05.04.2010 directing the Respondents, along with other candidates, to appear before the Selection Board.
Out of 35 candidates sponsored by the Institute, 17 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for interview and, out of those 17 candidates, 7 candidates were selected in the interview conducted on 20.04.2010 vide Memo No.26265 dated 16.06.2010, including Respondent No.1, who was posted as Receptionist-in-Charge, Respondent No.2 as W.A. No.1829 of 2025 Page 2 of 7 Housekeeping-in-Charge and Respondent No.3 as Waiter. All of them were appointed on a contractual basis on consolidated remuneration. They submitted their joining reports before the In-Charge of Odisha Bhawan. The initial period of engagement was for six months and the same was extended from time to time by the Home Department. The last such extension order was issued on 07.07.2021 for a further period of six months. Accordingly, the Respondents continued to work uninterruptedly for more than a decade.
Thereafter, the Respondents approached the authorities seeking regularisation of their services. In the meantime, the In- Charge Officer of Odisha Bhawan recommended the names of the Respondents for regularisation with effect from 01.08.2016 vide letter dated 16.06.2016, as they had been continuing in their respective positions against substantive posts. In the absence of any decision of the Government to close down the establishment of Odisha Bhawan and considering the continuing requirement of personnel for its functioning, the regularisation of the Respondents ought to have been considered. Their services being necessary and indispensable for the smooth functioning of Odisha Bhawan, the benefit of regularisation in recognition of their long years of service was recommended.
W.A. No.1829 of 2025 Page 3 of 7
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have assailed the same on the ground that the learned Single Judge has erroneously appreciated the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, thereby arriving at an incorrect conclusion. It is further contended that the respondents do not fall within the ambit of the principles laid down in Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247.
Reliance has also been placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91, State of Rajasthan vs. Dayalal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 and Satya Prakash and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 179.
4. Learned AGA appearing for the State-Appellants, during the course of hearing, vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge was swayed by the decision in Jaggo (supra) and failed to properly consider the law laid down in Umadevi (supra), as well as the other judgments relied upon by the appellants. It was further submitted that since the W.A. No.1829 of 2025 Page 4 of 7 engagement of the respondents was purely temporary and contractual in nature, they are not entitled to regularisation.
5. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants requires to be examined in the backdrop of the settled principle that the State, being a public employer, is expected to act as a model employer. As emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika vs. State of Assam, (2013) 2 SCC 516, the State must act with fairness, transparency and high ethical standards and ought not to resort to technical pleas that operate to the detriment of employees who have served it for long periods. The doctrine of the State as a model employer obligates it to ensure fairness and equity towards those who have rendered prolonged service to the establishment.
6. From the materials available on record, it is evident that the respondents have rendered services for more than a decade on a contractual basis against regular posts. The records further reveal that the State itself had requested the Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology to sponsor suitable candidates and, pursuant thereto, a selection process was undertaken in which the respondents were selected and engaged at Odisha Bhawan, established in the year 2010. Their engagement, therefore, cannot be said to be dehors any W.A. No.1829 of 2025 Page 5 of 7 procedure. Since the inception of Odisha Bhawan, the respondents have continuously discharged their duties in their respective capacities and there is no adverse material on record against them during the entire period of service.
7. The establishment of Odisha Bhawan at Mumbai continues to function in catering to the requirements of the State and nothing has been placed before this Court to demonstrate any infirmity in the impugned judgment, except reliance upon certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the principles laid down in Jaggo (supra), M.L. Keshari (supra) and Bhola Nath vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 95, which consider the position of employees who have rendered long years of service without regularisation, the submissions advanced by the appellants do not persuade this Court to take a view different from that taken by the learned Single Judge.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Single Judge has undertaken a detailed consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, as well as the manner in which the respondents were engaged and continued in service. The conclusions arrived at therein are in consonance with the W.A. No.1829 of 2025 Page 6 of 7 principles laid down in the decisions referred to above and, therefore, do not warrant any further elaboration by this Court.
9. We are, therefore, in broad agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondents for their regularisation. The respondents have rendered services for more than a decade after having undergone a process of selection and interview against substantive posts, though their engagement was described as contractual in nature. The recommendation made by the authorities of Odisha Bhawan for their regularisation against existing vacancies further lends support to their claim.
10. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 13-Mar-2026 14:30:11 W.A. No.1829 of 2025 Page 7 of 7