Orissa Water Supply And Sewerage vs Sandhyarani Pani
2025 Latest Caselaw 5537 Ori

Orissa High Court

Orissa Water Supply And Sewerage vs Sandhyarani Pani on 18 August, 2025

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.A. No. 423 of 2021
      Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage            ....               Appellant
      Board, Bhubaneswar
                                          Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Advocate
                                     -versus-
      1. Sandhyarani Pani
      2. State of Odisha
      3. Project Director, Project Management
      Unit, Bhubaneswar
      4. Chairman, Odisha Water Supply and
      Sewerage Board, Bhubaneswar
      5. Project Engineer of OWSSB,               ....           Respondents

Bhubaneswar Mr. Sangram Mishra, Advocate Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, AGA CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER

02. 18.08.2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Sangram Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents.

3. This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 8th December, 2020 vide Annexure-2 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 33467 of 2020.

4. Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent had filed W.P.(C) No. 33467 of 2020 with a prayer to regularize her services under the Appellant in terms of the ratio in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi: 2006 (4) SCC 1. The Respondent also relied upon the case of State of Karnataka and Others v. M.L. Keshari and Others: 2010 (II)

OLR (SC) 982. Learned Single Judge on the very first day of listing of the case i.e. on 8th December, 2020 allowed the writ petition taking note of the ratio in Umadevi and M.L. Keshari (supra) and directed as under:-

"In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is continuing as DLR employee under the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board and completed 24 years of service in the meantime and even though her appointment is irregular she should be regularized in service in view of the judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L.Keshari (supra), as well as Amarkanti Rai v. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.

In view of such position, the opposite parties are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.

With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is allowed."

5. The Appellant being aggrieved preferred W.A. No. 423 of 2021 which was disposed of along with a batch of writ appeals vide order dated 30th June, 2021 in a common order with the following direction:-

"In other words, we direct the appellants to consider the representation of the respondents in all these cases keeping in view the settled principles of law as stated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above. For this purpose, the Respondents in each cases are given liberty to file detailed representation along with duly attested copy of this Judgment within a period of twenty- one days, which shall be considered by the authorities keeping in view the aforesaid consideration within a period of one month thereafter by a reasoned order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Respondents."

6. However, the Respondent being not satisfied with the said order dated 30th June, 2021 moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 12880 of 2021 (Civil Appeal No. 6603 of 2024). The matter was taken up on 22nd May, 2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the following order was passed:-

"1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.423/2021 dated 30.06.2021.

3. It is represented to us by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Orissa Water Supply And Sewerage Board that identical matters are pending before the Division Bench of the High Court. A list of those matters is handed over to us.

4. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the writ appeal to its original number and direct that it should be heard with the pending batch of writ appeals. We are also informed that those batch of writ petitions are coming up again immediately after the summer recess

5. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible along with those writ appeals.

6. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

7. By the time this writ appeal was disposed of, Respondents in similarly situated writ appeals had filed representations before the Odisha Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bhubaneswar in terms of the common order dated 30th June, 2021 and their representations were rejected. Challenging the same, they also preferred separate writ petitions. Those being allowed, were pending in W.A. No. 857 of 2024 and batch of writ appeals filed by the present Appellant. In the meantime, W.A. No. 857 of 2024 and batch of writ appeals have been dismissed vide

judgment dated 30th July, 2025. In the concluding paragraph, the Co-ordinate Bench has observed as under:-

" 6.9. In Jaggo supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court having surveyed the law relating to regularization from Umadevi to Vinod Kumar v. UOI, has observed at Para-20 as under:

"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities.

The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization....

This decision has discussed most of the rulings cited both by the Appellants' counsel and learned advocates appearing for the employees. Therefore, we have not re-ventured the survey, so that this judgment does not become a thesis. More is not necessary to deliberate.

In the above circumstances, these appeals being devoid of merits are liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been reluctantly made easy.

The Appellant-Board & Official Respondents are directed to implement the impugned orders of the learned Single Judges and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of three months. Default or delay shall be viewed very

seriously in the next legal battle, if waged by the Respondent- employees."

8. Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that since this matter is in the roaster of this Bench, it could not be listed along with W.A. No. 857 of 2024 and batch of cases. He however submits that since the appeals filed by the Appellant have already been dismissed in the meantime, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present appeal, as the issue involved in the present writ appeal has already been answered in the negative in W.A. No. 857 of 2024 and batch of cases.

9. Mr. Sangram Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents also supports such submission.

10. In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed and it is observed that the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 33467 of 2020 filed by the Respondent should be implemented at the earliest.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

puspa

Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 19-Aug-2025 11:02:22