Orissa High Court
Rankanidhi Acharya vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.38277 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
..................
Rankanidhi Acharya
.... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner :Mr. K.C. Sahu,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:17.09.2025 and Date of Judgment:17.09.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. On the oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead Director, ICDS & S.W., W & C.D. Department, Odisha, BBSR as O.P. No.5 in Court.
// 2 //
2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-
"In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to -
i) quash office letter No.20472 dtd.
14.09.2023 and office letter
No.24662AVCD Dt.08.11.2023 as under
Annexure-9 & 10,
ii) issue Rule NISI calling upon the 0pp.
parties to show cause as to why necessary directions shall not be issued to regularize the services of the Petitioner in the post of Night Watcher or in the alternate in the post of Peon in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Kukudakhandi, Ganjam (0pp. Party No.4) with all consequential service benefits on in the alternative post him in any other vacant post in other ICDS Projects of Ganjam district.
And further be pleased to issue any other appropriate writ/writs, rule/rules or order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice,"
4. It is contended that petitioner though was engaged as contingent paid Chowkidar under ICDS Project, Kukudakhandi w.e.f. 01.08.1992 so reflected in office order dated 01.10.1992 of CDPO, Kukudakhandi under Annexure-1 and petitioner was allowed to continue as such without any break, but no step when was taken to Page 2 of 17 // 3 // absorb him in the post in question, petitioner approached this Curt by filing W.P.(C) No.37669 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 14.12.2021 under Annexure-6 series, directed O.P. No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of regularization taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247. 4.1. It is however contended that without proper appreciation of the same, petitioner's claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 under Annexure-10 inter alia on the ground that petitioner is continuing against a non-sanctioned post. 4.2. It is also contended that prior to rejecting such claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization, O.P. No.5 issued another communication on dated 14.09.2023 under Annexure- 9, directing therein all the Collectors of the State to engage persons for watch and ward, cleaning and sweeping in different ICDS Projects coming under Page 3 of 17 // 4 // Women and Child Development Department through out sourcing.
4.3. It is contended that since petitioner is continuing as a Sweeper on contingent basis w.e.f. 01.08.1992 in terms of order dated 01.10.1992 under Annexure-1, he is otherwise eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi and M.L. Keshari, but also in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018. 4.4. View expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi 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 Page 4 of 17 // 5 // 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."
4.5. 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).
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 Page 5 of 17 // 6 // 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' 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."
4.6. 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 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 Page 6 of 17 // 7 // 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:
• 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 Page 7 of 17 // 8 // 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 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."
4.7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:- Page 8 of 17
// 9 // "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."
4.8. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo and Shripal, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh, 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 Page 9 of 17 // 10 // 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 posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
xxx xxx xxx
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 Page 10 of 17 // 11 // 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 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 Page 11 of 17 // 12 // 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 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."
Page 12 of 17
// 13 // 4.9. It is also contended that after allowing the petitioner to continue all through as a contingent paid Chowkidar, action of the O.P. No.5 in issuing the impugned communication dated 14.09.2023 under Annexure-9, directing all the Collectors of the State to go for watch and ward, cleaning and sweeping work in different offices coming under Women and Child Development Department through out sourcing, is not only illegal but also an action on the part of the State to deny the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization. 4.10. It is further contended that after so many years of his continuance as a contingent paid Chowkidar, direction issued under Annexure-9 to go for such engagement through out sourcing is not permissible and the same is malafide in nature 4.11. Making all these submissions, it is contended that the stipulation contained in the impugned Communication dated 14.09.2023 under Annexure-9 and so also the rejection of the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of regularization vide the impugned order Page 13 of 17 // 14 // dated 08.11.2023 under Annexure-10 are not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.12. A further submission was also made that petitioner is continuing against a vacant post so reflected in the communication, enclosed to the communication dated 14.09.2023 under Annexure-9.
5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that though petitioner is continuing as a contingent paid Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.08.1992, but since he was so engaged against a non-sanctioned post and there is no vacancy available pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, petitioner was not found eligible to get the benefit of regularization.
5.1. It is contended that since petitioner is continuing against a non-sanctioned post and vacancies are not available, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization and the same has been rightly rejected. While supporting the impugned Page 14 of 17 // 15 // communication dated 14.09.2023 under Annexure-9, it is contended that since it is a policy decision of the Government, no interference is called for. 5.2. Making all these submissions, it is contended that petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner was engaged as contingent paid Chowkidar in the establishment of O.P. No.4 w.e.f. 01.08.1992 vide order dated 01.10.1992. Continuance of the petitioner as a contingent paid Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.08.1992 is not disputed. However, claim of the petitioner for his absorption pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court has been rejected on the ground that petitioner is continuing against a non-sanction post and there is no vacancy available.
6.1. Prior to such rejection of the petitioner's claim, another Communication was issued by the O.P. No.5 on 14.09.2023 inter alia directing all the Collectors of the Page 15 of 17 // 16 // State to engage all these persons involved in watch and ward, cleaning and sweeping in different offices coming under the Women and Child Development Department through out sourcing.
6.2. Taking into account the long continuance of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1992 and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court more particularly the decisions in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh, this Court is of the view that rejection of the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of regularization on the ground indicated in order dated 08.11.2023 under Annexure-10 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
6.3. It is also the view of this Court that decision taken and communicated vide the impugned communication dated 14.09.2023 under Annexure-19 to go for engagement of such persons through out sourcing, is nothing but a step on the part of the Govt. to deprive the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization after continuing for last 32 years as contingent Chowkidar. Page 16 of 17
// 17 // 6.4. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the direction contained under Annexure-9 communication dated 14.09.2023, as well as the rejection of the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of regularization vide order dated 08.11.2023 under Annexure-10. While quashing the impugned communication dated 14.09.2023 and the impugned order dated 08.11.2023, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh, this Court directs O.P. No.1 to regularize the services of the petitioner. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to pass an appropriate order in that regard within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. Till a decision is taken, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack Location: High Court of Orissa, Dated Cuttackthe 17th September, 2025/Basudev Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:07:35 Page 17 of 17