Orissa High Court
Shib Sankar Bhanja And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Jan-2025 15:18:00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1906 of 2022
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Shib Sankar Bhanja and another .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. D. Mohanty, A.G.A.
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate
for O.P. No.3
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
9 January 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr.
D. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-
Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned Advocate for
O.P. No.3-Boudh Municipality.
2. Two Petitioners in present writ petition are serving as drivers in
Road Roller vehicle and Tractor with Trolly Tanker owned by Boudh
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Jan-2025 15:18:00
Municipality (Opposite Party No.3). They are in service on DLR basis
since 1.9.1994 and 1.11.1997 respectively, and continuing till date
uninterruptedly with satisfactory performance of their duties. The
Petitioners have prayed for regularization of their services which was
rejected vide order dated 30.12.2021 at Annexure-7, impugned in the
present writ petition.
3. The reasons refusing to regularize the services of the Petitioners
as reflected from the impugned order under Annexure-7 as well as
from respective counter affidavits filed by the Municipality and other
authorities, are to the effect that, the Petitioners have been engaged
after the cut-off date, i.e. 12.04.1993, prescribed in the Finance
Department Circular, without having any approved posts.
4. As seen from the record and the pleadings made by the
Petitioners in the writ petition as well as the reply made in the counter
affidavits, their uninterrupted continuance in service till date remains
undisputed. No adverse report with regard to performance of their
duties has ever been reported. Secondly, their job requirements are
found indispensable and integral to the functions of the Municipality.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Jan-2025 15:18:00
5. The most important noticeable factor is that, both the vehicles,
i.e. Road Roller and Tractor with Trolly-Tanker, have been owned by
the Municipality for smoothening its function in better way. So when
the vehicles have been owned by the Municipality, it is obvious on the
part of the Municipality to have its regular drivers. But instead of the
same, the services of the Petitioners have been utilized for more than
26 years in temporary status as DLRs. Such course adopted by the
Municipality is complete misuse of services of employees engaged for
the work which is admittedly essential, recurring and integral to the
functions of the institution.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagoo vs. Union of India
and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, while dealing with similar
issues relating to regularization of services of Safaiwali and
Housekeepers, have observed as follows :-
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the
practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-
serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
"illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly
sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten
years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Jan-2025 15:18:00
measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately
reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to
procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment's explicit acknowledgement of cases where
regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the
judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
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."
7. In the instant case, admittedly nothing has been produced on
record to reveal anything that the services of the Petitioners have been
dispensed with for such period in a particular year, which otherwise
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Jan-2025 15:18:00
implies that the services of the Petitioners have been utilized, rather
exploited, regularly by keeping them in temporary status as DLR
employees. Thus, as stated in forgoing paragraphs, and the principles
settled in the case of Jagoo (supra), the Opposite Parties are directed to
regularize the services of the Petitioners by creating required posts, if
necessary, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
8. The writ petition is disposed of as allowed.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik/Secretary
