Orissa High Court
Biswanath Das vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 8 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.35714 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
..................
Biswanath Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. K. P. Mishra, Sr.Advocate
For Opp. Parties: : Mr. P.K. Panda,
Addl. Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing: 08.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 08.09.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
// 2 //
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging office order dtd.22.10.2021 so issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization has been rejected.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was engaged as a Peon on ad hoc basis with spell of 44 days starting from April 1992. Even though he was allowed to continue as such on ad hoc basis and was not regularized, Petitioner approached the Tribunal initially by filing O.A. No.672(C) of 2000. The Tribunal vide order dtd.23.02.2000 while disposing the O.A passed the following order:-
―Heard. Taken up on mention. The applicant is working as a peon (apparently on ad hoc ma capacity as seen from his appointment orders) in spells of 44 days starting from April 1992. In this original application he has prayed for regularization of his service with effect from 1.10.97 since from that date he is working against a retirement vacancy. The applicant has not been appointed following a regular selection.
The original application is therefore, disposed of with the direction that the post which he is holding shall not be filled up by another candidate on ad hoc basis and when steps are taken to fill it up in regular manner the applicant shall be allowed to take part in the selection along with other eligible persons and having regard to the fact that his services have been utilized in ad hoc capacity for a long period of seven years, his upper age limit be relaxed to facilitate his participation.Page 2 of 21
// 3 // Original application is disposed of.‖ 4.1. It is contended on the face of such order passed by the Tribunal, the post in question was never filled up by following due procedure of law and Petitioner was allowed to continue on ad hoc basis all through.
4.2. It is contended that since no such step was taken to fill up the post by conducting due recruitment in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-1 and Petitioner was allowed to continue on ad hoc basis all though staring from April 1992, Petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1133(C) of 2002, seeking regularization of his services.
4.3. It is contended that the Tribunal vide order dtd.26.07.2018 while disposing the matter issued the following direction so contained in Para-5:-
―5. In view of the fact that the applicant is working in the vacant sanctioned post of Peon at Mahanga Block for last more than 11 years by the time Annx.6 dt.8.7.2013 was issued and in view of the fact that there is no regular recruitment for filling up the post of Peon in Mahanga Block during these periods, the O.A. is disposed of by directing the Respd. Nos. 1 & 2 to take a decision in the matter of regularization of the service of the applicant, keeping in view Annx.6 & 7 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and convey the result thereof to the applicant‖.
4.4. It is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal when was not implemented and the Tribunal Page 3 of 21 // 4 // got abolished, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1252 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.20.01.2020 under Annexure-7, directed Opposite Party No.1 to implement the order passed by the Tribunal on dtd.26.07.2018 in O.A. No.1133(C) of 2002.
4.5. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the Petitioner's claim and his continuance on ad hoc basis w.e.f. April 1992, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.22.10.2021 under Annexure-8.
4.6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner since April 1992 is continuing on ad hoc basis till date and in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-1, no selection process was ever undertaken to fill up the post on regular basis and by allowing the Petitioner to participate.
4.7. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015(8) SCC 265 and Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2013 (14) SCC 65 and recent decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC Page 4 of 21 // 5 // OnLine SC 221 as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, it is contended that Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of regularization and appropriate direction be issued in that regard with quashing of the impugned rejection dtd.22.10.2021 under Annexure-8.
4.8. In the case of Uma Devi, Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-44 has held as follows:-
―44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-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 courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization 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 regularize 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 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 wages 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 subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.‖ Page 5 of 21 // 6 // 4.9. Similarly Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.L. Keshari in Para- 8 and 13 has held as follows:-
"8. Umadevi (3) casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi (3) directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006).
xxx xxx xxx
13. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of the respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs to be given, in view of Umadevi (3), is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should not undertake an exercise within six months, as a general one- time regularisation exercise, to find out whether there are daily-wage/casual/adhoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfil the requirements mentioned in para-53 of Umadevi (3). If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularised. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of Respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one-time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of para 53 of Umadevi (3), their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years' Page 6 of 21 // 7 // service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularisation in suitable lower posts.‖ 4.10. In the case of Nihal Singh, Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 35, 36 and 38 of the decision has held as follows:
35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State.
36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State.
Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the Legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits at par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is - the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks. We are of the opinion that neither the Government of Punjab nor these public sector banks can continue such a Page 7 of 21 // 8 // practice consistent with their obligation to function in accordance with the Constitution. Umadevi's judgment cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities.
xxx xxx xxx
38. We direct the State of Punjab to regularise the services of the appellants by creating necessary posts within a period of three months from today. Upon such regularisation, the appellants would be entitled to all the benefits of services attached to the post which are similar in nature already in the cadre of the police services of the State. We are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to the costs throughout. In the circumstances, we quantify the costs to Rs.10,000/- to be paid to each of the appellants.‖ 4.11. In the case of Amarkanta Rai, Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-4,11,12,13,14 & 15 has held as follows:
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant served on the post for 29 years on daily wages and even as per the decision in para 53 in Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , irregular appointment of employees who have worked for more than 10 years should be considered on merits. It was contended that the appellant has been working in a sanctioned post and his appointment was not illegal but in the facts and circumstances of the case, his appointment could only be irregular appointment entitling him for regularisation. It was submitted that the three-
member Committee as well as the High Court did not keep in view that the case of the appellant was recommended for regularisation.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Elaborating upon the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , this Court held as under: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010) 9 Page 8 of 21 // 9 // SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , SCC p. 250, para 7) ―7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ‗regularisation' enunciated in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.‖
12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , this Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 14 SCC 65 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 85] directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of Punjab holding as under: (Nihal Singh case [(2013) 14 SCC 65 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 85] , SCC pp. 79-80, paras 35-36) ―35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for Page 9 of 21 // 10 // decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State.
36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is--the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks.‖
13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularisation viz. one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of clerk was regularised w.e.f. 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 3-1-2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits to be paid from 1-1-2010.
Page 10 of 21// 11 //
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served the University for more than 29 years on the post of night guard and that he has served the College on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the authorities are directed to regularise the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3-1-2002 (the date on which he rejoined the post as per the direction of the Registrar).
15. The impugned order of the High Court in Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar [ LPA No. 1312 of 2012, order dated 20-2- 2013 (Pat), 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 775] dated 20-2-2013 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The authorities are directed to notionally regularise the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3-1-2002, or the date on which the post became vacant whichever is later and without monetary benefit for the above period. However, the appellant shall be entitled to monetary benefits from 1-1-2010. The period from 3-1-2002 shall be taken for continuity of service and pensionary benefits.
4.12. A further contention was also raised that Hon'ble Apex Court in the meantime in the case of Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others and Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, has taken a view that persons engaged as DLR/NMR basis for a pretty long period are entitled to get the benefit of regularization. View expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:-
―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 Page 11 of 21 // 12 // 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.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
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 long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:Page 12 of 21
// 13 // • 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 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment Page 13 of 21 // 14 // practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.‖ 4.13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Para- 14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:-
―14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
15. ....... Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
18.(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.‖ Page 14 of 21 // 15 // 4.14. It is also contended that placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Jaggo and Shripal, 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), in Paragraph-
13,14,15 & 17,18,19 & 20 has held as follows:
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not ―full-time‖ employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about ―rules‖ and ―vacancy‖ while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV Page 15 of 21 // 16 // posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
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 an institutional 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 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 Page 16 of 21 // 17 // 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. Retired appellants: 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 Judgment.
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 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 Page 17 of 21 // 18 // 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.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.4. The stand taken in Para-6 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
―6. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-1 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner Sri Das was engaged in Mahanga Block on 44 days basis vide Order No.2103 dated 21.06.2004 of BDO, Mahanga Block and has worked till December, 2021 on 44 days spell. Prior to that Sri Das was engaged as peon in Mahanga Block on 44 days spell in different times as and when required by the Block administration and the services of the petitioner was not continuous. In the year 1997 the petitioner was engaged as peon on 44 days basis w.e.f.27.3.1907 to 8.7.1997 and 11.7.1997 23.8.1997 His services was extended w.e.f 258 and he was terminated from service on 27.9.1997. After a lapse of more than one year he was again engaged on 44 days basis w.e.f. 26.10.9% to 8.12.1998. Then his services was extended from time to time till 12.3.2002. All these engagements are without following the recruitment procedure. Then as the services of the petitioner was not required by the Block administration, his services was not extended with effect from 13.03.2002 and for the said reason the petitioner filed OA No.1133 0/2002 for his engagement and regularisation The fact has been discussed in Para 2 of the judgement dated 26.7.2018 passed in OA No.1133 /2002 at Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition. Also the petitioner has mentioned the fact in Para 3(b) of the Writ petition. However, as per letter No.6745 dated Page 18 of 21 // 19 // 9.6.2004 of the Government in Panchayati Raj Department at Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, Sri Biswanth Das was engaged in Mahanga Block on 44 days basis vide Order No.2103 dated 21.06.2004 of BDO, Mahanga Block and continued till December, 2021 on 44 days spell. As such the initial appointment of the petitioner has been taken as 2004 from where the petitioner has worked in a continuous manner under 44 days spell. Further the engagement of the petitioner was without following the due recruitment procedure and hence it is irregular. However, as an one time relaxation admissible in the judgement of Uma Devi case passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Court have directed for regularisation of such irregular appointees who had been continuing in such appointment for at least 10 years as on the date of the judgement(i.e.10.4.2006) without protection of the court order. Thus the ratio of the judgement in Uma Devi case shall not apply to the Contractual appointments/ engagements made after 11.4.1996 and the cases of the Contractual appointments/engagements which are not continuous for 10 years as on 10.4.2006.As the case of the petitioner is not coming under the said condition as explained above, his prayer for regularisation has been rightly rejected vide Order dated 22.10.2021 at Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition.‖ 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner all through is continuing on ad hoc basis by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal on 23.02.2000 under Annexure-1, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization and it has been rightly rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission's made, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially engaged on ad hoc basis w.e.f. April, 1992. While so continuing he Page 19 of 21 // 20 // approached the Tribunal seeking regularization of his services. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application vide order under Annexure-1 with the observation that till as and when regular selection process will be undertaken to fill up the post, Petitioner be allowed to participate with relaxation of the age.
6.1. As found from the record, no such selection process was undertaken to fill up the post on regular basis and is also not disputed that since April, 1992 to till date, Petitioner is continuing on ad hoc basis.
6.2. In view of such long continuance on ad hoc basis w.e.f. April 1992, placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is otherwise eligible to get the benefit of regularization. The stand taken by the State -Opposite Parties that Petitioner all though continued because of the nature of order passed by the Tribunal on 23.02.2000 under Annexure-1 is not acceptable, as in terms of the said order, no step was ever taken to fill up the post on regular basis.
6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.22.10.2021 so issued under Annexure-8. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to regularize the services of the Petitioner with passing of an appropriate Page 20 of 21 // 21 // order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 8th September, 2025/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 26-Sep-2025 16:04:40 Page 21 of 21