Orissa High Court
Son Of Benudhar Sahoo vs Central Electricity Supply Utility Of ... on 25 July, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13753 of 2020
&
W.P.(C) No.13752 of 2020
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
W.P.(C) No.13753 of 2020
1. Pabitra Kumar Mallick,
Aged about 39 years
Son of Kashinath Mallick
Presently residing
At: Kakarudrapur, Via: Balipatna
District: Khordha.
2. Sukanta Kumar Biswal
Aged about 33 years
Son of Sadasiba Biswal
At: Sunapada, P.O.: Haripur
Via: Pipili, District: Puri.
3. Biswajit Satapathy
Aged about 42 years
Son of Late Purna Chandra Satapathy
At/PO: Biswanathapur
Via: Balipatna, District: Khordha.
4. Susanta Kumar Sahoo
Aged about 38 years
Son of Sankar Sahoo
At: Raghunathpur Patna
P.O.: Gholapur
District: Cuttack.
5. Santanu Kumar Sahoo
Aged about 38 years
Son of Benudhar Sahoo
At: Champabasta, P.O.: Balipatna
District: Khordha.
6. Kalandi Senapati
Aged about 51 years
Son of Siba Senapati
At: Kunchapada
P.O.: Banamalipur
District: Khordha.
7. Deepak Kumar Mohapatra
Aged about 47 years
Son of Sarata Chandra Mohapatra
At: Sibabrahmapur
P.O.: Banamalipur
District: Khordha.
8. Brundaban Chinara
Aged about 42 years
Son of Late Ghanashyama Chinara
At: Athanpur
At/P.O./District: Khordha. ... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
1. Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha
Represented through
Chief Executive Officer
Having its Head Office
At 2nd Floor, IDCO Towers
Janapath, Bhubaneswar.
2. Senior General Manager (HR),
At 2nd Floor, IDCO Towers,
Janapath, Bhubaneswar.
3. Manager (Electrical),
Nimapara Electrical Division
Nimapara (NED)
At/P.O.: Dighalo, Nimapara
District: Puri.
4. Tata Power Limited
Represented though
CEO & Managing Director
Having its Registered Office
At Bombay House,
24, Homi Mody Street
Mumbai, Maharashtra.
5. Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd.
(TPCODL)
Represented though
Chairman
Having its Registered Head Office
At 2nd Floor, IDCO Tower
Janpath, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha. ... Opposite parties.
Jiten Kumar Behera,
Aged about 30 years,
Son of Late Gagan Bihari Behera,
presently residing at Taila,
P.O.: Dhanetri, P.S.: Konark,
District: Puri. ... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
1. Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha
Represented through
Chief Executive
Officer, having its Head Office
At 2nd Floor, IDCO Towers
Janapath, Bhubaneswar.
2. Senior General Manager (HR),
At 2nd Floor, IDCO Towers,
Janapath, Bhubaneswar.
3. Manager (Electrical),
Bhubaneswar City Distribution
Division-1 (BCDD-1),
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
4. Tata Power Limited
Represented though
CEO & Managing Director
Having Registered Office
At Bombay House
24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai
Maharashtra.
5. Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd.
(TPCODL),
represented though
Chairman
Having its Registered Head Office
At 2nd Floor, IDCO Tower
Janpath, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha. ... Opposite parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Budhadev Routray,
Senior Advocate assisted by
M/s. S.D. Routrary,
B.R. Pattanayak, Shakti Sekhar,
Jagdish Biswal, A.K. Das and
M.M. Panda, Advocates
For the Opposite party : M/s. Bijaya Kumar Dash,
Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 Rajbhusan Dash, Smruti Ranjan Dash,
Ramesh Chandra Sethy and
Kishor Nayak, Advocates
For the Opposite Party : None
No.3
For the Petitioner : Mr. Budhadev Routray,
Senior Advocate assisted by
M/s. S.D. Routrary,
B.R. Pattanayak, Shakti Sekhar,
Jagdish Biswal, A.K. Das and
M.M. Panda, Advocates
For the Opposite party : M/s. Bijaya Kumar Dash,
Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 Rajbhusan Dash, Smruti Ranjan Dash,
Ramesh Chandra Sethy and
Kishor Nayak, Advocates
For the Opposite Party : None
No.3
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 25.07.2025
J UDGMENT
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.--
THE WRIT PETITIONS:
Assailing the order dated 04.01.2020 of the Senior
General Manager (HR)-opposite party No.2, by which the
petitioners are denied regularisation in service
notwithstanding the bipartite settlement dated
08.06.2010, by virtue of which other similarly placed
Non-ITI workers engaged through outsourcing agency
were regularized, but the petitioners are left out, these
writ petitions, being W.P.(C) Nos.13753 of 2020 and
13752 of 2020, are filed craving to invoke extraordinary
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India with the following prayer(s)1:
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble
Court be graciously pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the record.
iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties
more particular opp. Party no.2 to show cause as to
why the letter dated 04.01.2020 issued by the
opposite party No.2 under Annexure-8 shall not be
quashed;
iv) If the opposite parties more particularly opp. Party
no.2 do not show cause or show insufficient cause
issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/
directions by quashing the letter dated 04.01.2020
issued by the opposite party No.2 under Annexure-8;
v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/
directions directing the opp. Party No.2 to appoint
the petitioners ("petitioner" in WP(C) No.13752 of
2020) to the post of Helper Trainee and
subsequently regularize the services of the
1 Identical prayers are made in both the writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.13753 of
2020 and 13752 of 2020.
petitioners ("service of the petitioner" in WP(C)
No.13752 of 2020) as agreed upon by the union of
the petitioners and opposite party No.1 management
in the bi-partite settlement dated 08.06.2010 under
Annexure-3;
vi) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus of any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/
directions directing the opp. Party no.2 to grant all
consequential service benefits to the petitioners
("petitioner" in WP(C) No.13752 of 2020) as has
already been extended to their counterparts from the
date of their appointment to the post of Trainee
Helper as per the bi-lateral settlement dated
08.06.2010 under Annexure-3;
vii) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/
directions as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit and proper
for the ends of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray."
Factual matrix:
2. The facts emanated from the pleadings reveal that the
petitioners, Non-ITI, engaged to work as Helper through
outsourcing agency, namely, Maa Tarini Security
Services in the year 2005 under the Central Electricity
Supply Utility of Odisha-opposite party No.1, being not
regularized in service, through their Union placed
grievance for resolution on 03.12.2009 between the
Management and the representatives of the Union. The
charter of demands inter alia at Serial No.6 contained
regularization of all categories of contract workers, such
as, ITI, Non ITI (Helper), Data Entry Operator, Office
Assistant, Attendant and others workers. The opposite
party No.1 settled the said dispute vide Bi-partite
Settlement dated 08.06.2010, wherein at paragraph-3 it
is decided as under:
"3. Outsourced Non-ITI working in O & M:
Those Non-ITIs working in Operation and
Maintenance activities and have already completed
one year engagement in CESU through outside
agency would be considered as Helper (Trainee) and
would be placed on 3½ years training period. The
stipend payable during the training period is given
in Annexure-B. On successful completion of training
period, they will be placed in Regular Pay Scale of
Scale of Rs.4440-10200 with grade pay of
Rs.1750/- and their basic pay will be fixed at
Rs.4440/-. Before they are taken as Trainee, they
are subjected to qualifying the Viva-voce & practical
desk-top test."
2.1. The opposite party No.2-Senior General Manager (HR) on
09.08.2010 issued a letter to all the General Managers,
Deputy General Manager, Additional General Manager
and Managers in-Charge of Circles/Divisions stating
that the Management of CESU had decided to bring all
the outsourced helpers (Non-ITIs excluding security
guards) engaged in Operation and Maintenance activities
and Peons/Attendants (Non-ITIs excluding security
guards) to the trainee fold of CESU subject to qualifying
interview and practical desktop test and also vide Letter
dated 15.02.2011 provided the date and venue of desk-
top test and interview for the post of Helper (trainee).
2.2. In the meantime, the Odisha State Electricity Board
Shramik Maha Sangha and one Security Guard, who
was working in the Bhubaneswar City Distribution
Division No.1 of CESU filed writ petition being WP(C)
No.4188 of 2011 before this Court, wherein vide order
dated 23.02.2011 notices were issued with interim
protection staying the selection process of post of Helper
(Trainee). Therefore, the desk-top and interview test of
the Non-ITI workers could not proceed in view of interim
order passed by this Court. However, vide order dated
11.08.2011 said writ petition came to be dismissed and,
consequently, the interim order stood vacated.
2.3. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, certain
Helpers (Trainees) after successful completion of three
and half years of training under CESU, were regularized
in service vide Office Order dated 30.10.2014, while the
petitioners are side tracked.
2.4. The Board of CESU in its 42nd Meeting held on
10.06.2014 again decided to bring the existing left out
outsourced personnel engaged prior to 31.05.2010 in
Operation and Management and other activities to the
fold of CESU as Helper Trainee and they will be
regularized regularly after completing three and half
years of training. Seamlessly working as such, waiting
for further eight years with the hope of consideration of
their regularization, the petitioners made representation
on 17.11.2019 before the Ministry of Energy
Department, which was forwarded to the opposite party
No.2 on 17.12.2019 for consideration and the opposite
party No.2 vide order dated 04.01.2020 instead of
regularizing the petitioners as per the bi-partite
settlement dated 08.06.2010 stemming on which other
Non-ITI workers engaged through outsourced agencies,
like the present petitioners, were regularized, but taking
shelter of State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC
1, the opposite party No.2 instead of regularizing the
present petitioners in service, decided to give weightage
to the petitioners whenever fresh recruitment for
relevant post would be made.
2.5. The text of Letter dated 04.01.2020 of CESU (Annexure-
8), impugned in the writ petitions, is quoted hereunder:
"Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha
Head office: 2nd Floor, IDCO Towers, Janapath, Bhuabneswar-751022
Telephone-2541 727, Fax-2543 125.
Ref.No.CESU/HR/18-11/2012(Vol-II)/259, Date-4th January, 2020
To
The Additional Secretary to Government
Department of Energy,
Government of Odisha.
Sub: Regularisation of 121 Non-ITI personnel working in O&M
Activities to the post of Helper Trainee.
Ref: Your office letter No.ENG-RR-DISTCOM-0025-2017/10144/En,
dtd.26.11.2019.
Sir,
In inviting reference to the subject cited above and
the letter under reference it is to intimate you that
the Management Board of CESU in it 45 th meeting
held on 02.09.2015 decided that the case of
regularisation of the 121 Non-ITI personnel working
in O&M Activities to the post of Helper (Trainee)
cannot be considered in view of the judgment
passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others Vrs. Umadevi (3) and
others Vide Case No. Appeal(Civil) 3595-3612 of
1999 and reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Further, the Board Members in the 49th Board
meeting held on 24.09.2016, again deliberated on
the matter of regularisation of the 121 outsourced
personnel and re-confirmed that their case for
regularisation cannot be considered in light of above
stated judgments of the Apex Court. However, it was
also decided that they may be given some weightage
whenever fresh recruitment for relevant posts will be
done by CESU. These decisions of the Management
board of CESU have been communicated to their
Union i.e. Odisha Rajya Bidyut Shramika
Karmachari Engineers Ekta Manch & OSEB
Employee Federation vide letter no.17555 dtd
01.08.2016 and 24558 dtd.24.10.2016 respectively.
This is for your kind information please.
Yours faithfully.
Sd/-
Sr. General Manager (HR)"
2.6. To ventilate grievance, the present petitioners have
approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions,
registered as W.P.(C) Nos.13753 of 2020 and 13752 of
2020.
Hearing:
3. On consent of the counsel for respective parties,
analogous hearing of the writ petitions was taken up as
the pleadings in both the matters are complete and issue
involved in both the cases is identical.
3.1. Accordingly, heard Sri Budhadev Routrary, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jagdish Biswal, learned
Advocate appearing for the petitioners in both the writ
petitions and Sri Bijay Kumar Dash, learned Advocate
for the opposite party Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5.
3.2. On conclusion of hearing, the matters are kept reserved
for preparation and pronouncement of the judgment/
order.
Rival contentions and submissions:
4. Sri Budhadev Routrary, learned Senior Advocate along
with Sri Jagdish Biswal, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to
paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite
party No.5 submitted that the stand taken by the
opposite party that the petitioners do not have the
requisite qualification and not involved in the Operation
and Maintenance activities, is not borne on record.
4.1. It is submitted that the opposite parties could not deny
regularization in service of the petitioners who have been
engaged to perform the work of Helper since 2005 and
the CESU authorities should have adhered to the terms
of bi-partite settlement of the year 2010. Even otherwise,
since the petitioners have requisite qualification and
have been continuing to discharge the work entrusted to
them without any blemish, turning down their claim is
unwholesome, illogical and irrational.
4.2. Drawing attention of this Court to Minutes of discussion
held on 03.12.2009 between the Management of CESU
and the Odisha State Electricity Board Employees
Federation submitted that all pros and cons were
examined by the Management with respect to "all
categories of contract workers" including the "ITI and
Non-ITI (Helper)" who have already been "engaged in the
job of perennial nature" for regularization. Settlement
has been arrived at between the Management of CESU
and the Odisha State Electricity Board Employees
Federation on 08.06.2010 with respect to outsourced
Non-ITIs, working in Operation and Maintenance
activities; and those who had already completed one year
engagement in CESU through outside agency. Since the
petitioners have the requisite qualification, their case
cannot be ignored.
4.3. A Letter dated 09.08.2010 was issued by the opposite
party No.2 requiring all General Managers and Other
Managers of Circles and Divisions to forward filled in
application from eligible candidates. A writ petition being
W.P.(C) No.4188 of 2011 was filed at the behest of one
security guard and the OSEB Shramika Mahasangha in
which the selection process of post of Helper (Trainee)
was stayed. However, said case was dismissed by order
dated 11.08.2011. Thereafter, the opposite parties
regularized services of similarly situated Non-ITI Helpers
of different Divisions.
4.4. Having utilized the services of the petitioners for such a
long period and making them await for consideration of
their regularization in service with assurance that the
benefit of bi-partite settlement would be extended to
them as has already been worked out for certain other
similarly situated personnel, by taking shelter of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1, at this distance of time would not only violate
right to be considered for employment but also impinge
avowed object of protection conferred under the
Constitution of India through Article 14.
5. Sri Bijay Kumar Dash, learned Advocate for the opposite
parties would defend the rejection of claim of the
petitioners vide Letter No.04.01.2020 issued by the
Senior General Manager (HR) of Central Electricity
Supply Utility of Odisha, wherein the reason ascribed is
this:
"***
Further, the Board Members in the 49th Board Meeting
held on 24.09.2016, again deliberated on the matter of
regularisation of the 121 outsourced personnel and re-
confirmed that their case for regularization cannot be
considered in light of above stated judgment of the Apex
Court. However, it was also decided that they may be
given some weightage whenever fresh recruitment for
relevant posts will be done by CESU. These decisions of
the Management Board of CESU have been communicated
to their Union, i.e., Odisha Rajya Bidyut Shramika
Karmachari Engineers Ekta Manch and OSEB Employees
Federation vide Letter No.17555, dated 01.08.2016 and
24558, dated 24.10.2016 respectively. ***"
5.1. Learned counsel for the opposite parties laid emphasis
on the stance taken in paragraph-9 of the counter
affidavit, which is extracted hereunder:
"9. That with regard to the averments made in para-9 of
this application, it is humbly submitted that it is not
a fact that because of the interim stay, the cases of
121 of Non-ITI persons were not considered. The
communication dated 09.08.2010 was purely
intended to invite applications from outsourced
helpers engaged in Operation & Maintenance
activities for the post of Helper (Trainee) vide Letter
No.37660, dated 09.08.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ
petition). Only shortlisted candidates were called for
Desk-top test and interview. Since the petitioners
had no relevant experience in Operation &
Maintenance activities, their cases were not
considered for the post of Helper (Trainee).
The Hon‟ble High Court vide order 04.08.2011 in
WP(C) No.4188 of 2011 has mentioned that the
settlement applies to those Non-ITI‟s who are
actually working in Operation & Maintenance
activities and the Security Guards have never
participated in Maintenance & Operation activities.
And, hence cannot take the advantage of settlement
and claim for regularization.
In the similar circumstances since the petitioners, do
not have experience in Operation and Maintenance
activities their cases were not considered for
regularization."
5.2. With such assertion, Sri Bijay Kumar Dash, learned
Advocate for the opposite parties urged to dismiss the
writ petition, being sans merit.
CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
6. It is fact that the petitioners are Non-ITI Workers/
Helpers engaged through outsourcing agency during
2005-07. Since then they have been rendering service to
the opposite parties (erstwhile Organisation as also
present Organisation). Scrutiny of documents enclosed
to the writ petition as Annexure-1 series relating to
experience certificates issued by authorities
demonstrates that these Non-ITI workers have been
utilised in the performance of maintenance of 11 KV
Line, LT Line and also as electricians in Operation and
Maintenance work. Such documents, which apparently
show that they have gained experience in the Operation
and Maintenance Work, have been relied on by the
petitioners and the same are not denied or disputed by
the opposite parties in the counter affidavit.
Nonetheless, the opposite parties have emphatically
disputed the fact that only Non-ITI Workers who had
experience in Operation and Maintenance activities were
considered for Helper (Trainee) in the selection process.
6.1. Be that as it may, it has been averred in the rejoinder of
the petitioners that it is the Bi-partite Settlement which
is binding inter se parties in view of Section 18(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
POSITION AS TO REGULARISATION IN SERVICE:
7. It is pertinent to notice following observation made in Dr.
Prasana Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C)
No.11148 of 2005, reported at 2016 (I) ILR-CUT 373:
"7. In Binan Kumar Mohanty Vrs. Water and Land
Management Institute (WALMI), 2015 (I) OLR 347
referring to Kapila Hingorani Vrs. State of Bihar,
(2003) 6 SCC 1 the apex Court held that the
Government companies/public sector undertakings
being „States‟ would be constitutionally liable to
respect life and liberty of all persons in terms of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if
the petitioner has rendered service for around 20
years, keeping in view the ratio decided in Kopila
Hingorani (supra), this Court issues direction to the
opposite parties to mitigate the hardship of the
employees. Financial stringency is no ground for not
issuing requisite directions when there is violation of
fundamental rights of the petitioner. Allowing a
person to continue for a quite long period of 20 years
of service and exploiting him on the pretext of
financial crunch in violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is sheer arbitrariness of the
authority which is highly condemnable.
8. In Narendra Kumar Ratha and Others Vrs. State of
Odisha and Others, 2015 (I) OLR 197, this Court has
taken into consideration the object of Article 16 of
the Constitution of India to create a constitutional
right to equality of opportunity and employment in
public offices. The word „employment or
appointment‟ cover not merely the initial
appointment, but also other attributes like salary,
increments, revision of pay, promotion, gratuity,
leave pension and age of superannuation etc.
Appointment to any post under the State can only be
made in accordance with the provisions and
procedure envisaged under the law and guidelines
governing the field.
9. In Prabodh Verma and Others Vrs. State of U.P. and
Others, (1984) 4 SCC 251, the apex Court held that
Article 16 is an instance of the application of the
general rule of equality laid down in Article 14, with
special reference to the opportunity for appointment
and employment under the Government.
10. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court
in Km. Neelima Mishra Vrs. Harinder Kaur Paintal
and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 746 = AIR 1990 SC 1402
and E.P. Royappa Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu and
Another, (1974) 4 SCC 3. Clause (1) of Article 16
guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in
the matters of employment or appointment to any
office under the State. The very concept of equality
implies recourse to valid classification for preference
in favour of the disadvantaged classes of citizens to
improve their conditions so as to enable them to
raise themselves to positions of equality with the
more fortunate classes of citizens. This view has
also been taken note of by the apex Court in the
case of Indra Sawhney Vrs. Union of India, 1992
Supp. (3) SCC 217 = AIR 1993 SC 477."
7.1. The case of Prasana Kumar Mishra (supra) was carried in
appeal before the Division Bench, giving arise to W.A.
No.4 of 2016, which was dismissed vide Order dated
11.12.2019. Said matter, being carried further to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide Order dated
07.08.2020, the S.L.P.(C) No.4945 of 2020, filed at the
behest of Biju Patnaik University of Technology, stood
dismissed.
7.2. So far as regularization of services, in a catena of
decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing
illuminatingly with the concept of regularization, in the
case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vrs. State of Jharkhand,
(2018) 8 SCC 238, said as follows:
"The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3)
was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or
illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer
a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in
the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued
with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after
the decision in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 is a clear
indication that it believes that it was all right to continue
with irregular appointments and whenever required,
terminate the services of the irregularly appointed
employees on the ground that they were irregularly
appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation
of the employees by not giving them the benefits of
regularisation and by placing the sword of
Damocles over their head. This is precisely what
Umadevi and Kesari sought to avoid."
7.3. In Sunil Barik Vrs. State of Odisha, 2021 (II) OLR 469, it
has been discussed as follows:
"12. As it appears from the record itself, the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the exception
carved out in paragraph 53 of the judgment
rendered in Umadevi (3) mentioned supra. Meaning
thereby, against an existing sanctioned vacancy in
the post of Barber, the petitioner having been
engaged by following due procedure of selection in
the post of Home Guard and continued for a quite
long period, which is not disputed by the opposite
parties-State as per the pleadings available in the
counter affidavit and, as such, the petitioner is still
continuing, the same cannot be treated as an „illegal
engagement‟, rather it may be nomenclatured as an
„irregular engagement‟.
13. In State of Jammu and Kashmir Vrs. District Bar
Association, Bandipora, MANU/SC/1566/2016 =
(2017) 3 SCC 410, wherein a distinction has been
made with regard to „irregular‟ and „illegal‟
engagement, referring to the exception carved out in
Umadevi (3) mentioned supra, in paragraph 12 of
the said judgment it has been stated as follows:
„12. The third aspect of Umadevi (3) which bears
notice is the distinction between an „irregular‟
and „illegal‟ appointment. While answering
the question of whether an appointment is
irregular or illegal, the Court would have
to enquire as to whether the appointment
process adopted was tainted by the vice of
non-adherence to an essential prerequisite
or is liable to be faulted on account of the
lack of a fair process of recruitment. There
may be varied circumstances in which an ad
hoc or temporary appointment may be made.
The power of the employer to make a
temporary appointment, if the exigencies
of the situation so demand, cannot be
disputed. The exercise of power however
stands vitiated if it is found that the exercise
undertaken
(a) was not in exigencies of administration; or
(b) where the procedure adopted was
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution; and/or
(c) where the recruitment process was
overridden by the vice of nepotism, bias or
mala fides."
7.4. In Suvendu Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha, 2015 SCC
OnLine Ori 267, it has been observed as follows:
"9. With regard to the regularization of the services of
the petitioners, a mention has been made in
Annexure-4 that the petitioners being irregular
recruits, their regularization is not permissible under
the State Government Rules. But this condition made
in the restructuring order in Annexure-4 so far as it
relates to the petitioners cannot be applicable in
view of the fact that the petitioners have been
appointed against regular vacancies available in the
regular scale of pay admissible to the post. But in
view of their continued service for more than 10
years, their cases are covered by the ratio of the
judgment of the apex Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 = AIR
2006 SC 1806, wherein the apex Court has held that
the appointments made against temporary or ad-hoc
basis are not to be regularized. In paragraph 53 of
the said judgment, it is provided that irregular
appointment of duly qualified persons against
sanctioned posts, who have worked for 10
years or more can be considered on merits and
steps to be taken as one time measure to
regularize them. In Paragraph 53 of the said
judgment, the apex Court has held as follows:
***
10. The object behind the exception carved out in this
case was to permit regularization of such
appointments, which are irregular but not illegal,
and to ensure security of employment of those
persons who served the State Government and their
instrumentalities for more than ten years. Similar
question came up for consideration before the apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 2015 (arising out of
SLP (Civil) No. 20169 of 2013 disposed of on
13.3.2015 [Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar, (2015)
8 SCC 265]. In paragraphs 12 and 13, the apex
Court has held as follows:
„12. Elaborating upon the principles laid down in
Umadevi‟s case (supra) and explaining the
difference between irregular and illegal
appointments in State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L.
Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, this Court held as
under:
„7. It is evident from the above that there is
an exception to the general principles
against "regularisation" enunciated in
Umadevi (3), 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.‟
13. Applying the ratio of Umadevi‟s case, this Court
in Nihal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, (2013) 14
SCC 65 directed the absorption of the Special
Police Officers in the services of the State of
Punjab holding as under:
„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
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.‟***"
7.5. Reference can also be had to Amarendra Kumar
Mohapatra Vrs. State of Odisha, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR
2014 SC 1716; Subrata Narayan Das Vrs. State of
Odisha, W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016, vide Judgment dated
12.07.2022.
7.6. In the case of Union of India Vrs. Central Administrative
Tribunal, (2019) 4 SCC 290 the following is the
observation:
"25. The Court noted in the above judgment that if a strict
and literal interpretation was given to the decision in
Umadevi, no employee from the State of Jharkhand
appointed on an irregular basis could ever be
regularized as the State was formed on 15
November 2000 and the cut-off date had been fixed
as 10 April 2006. The intent of the Court was to
grant similarly-placed employees who had put the
requisite years of service as mandated by Umadevi,
the benefit of regularization. The Court thus held
that the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit
Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa
Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015 („the
Regularisation Rules‟) must be interpreted in a
pragmatic manner and employees of the State who
had completed 10 years of service on the date of
promulgation of the rules, ought to be regularized. In
doing so, the Court ensured that employees in the
State of Jharkhand who had completed the same
years of service as employees from other States, are
granted parity in terms of regularization. The spirit
of non-discrimination and equity runs through the
decisions in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], ML Kesari
[(2010) 9 SCC 247] and Narendra Kumar Tiwari
[(2018) 8 SCC 238].
26. In this background, the issue which now arises
before this Court is in regard to the effective direction
which would govern the present case. The High
Court has directed the Union of India to absorb the
casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute
in question, then in any other establishment. The
latter part of the direction, as we have already
noted, cannot be sustained. Equally, in our opinion,
the authorities cannot be heard to throw their hands
in despair by submitting that there are no vacancies
and that it had already regularized such of the
persons in the seniority list, who reported for work.
The Tribunal has entered a finding of fact that this
defence is clearly not borne out of the record.
Accordingly, we are of the view that having decided
to implement the decision of the Tribunal, which was
affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must
follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the
seniority list in proceeding to regularize the workmen
concerned. Accordingly, we direct that the case
for regularization shall be considered strictly
in accordance with the seniority list in
pursuance of the directions which were issued
by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High
Court and such of the persons, who are
available for regularization on the basis of
vacancies existing at present, shall be
considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal
has denied back-wages but has ordered a notional
fixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that
direction, we also direct that persons who have
crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to
the computation and payment of their retiral dues on
that basis. This exercise shall be carried out within a
period of three months from the receipt of a copy of
the judgment. If it becomes necessary to grant age
relaxation to the concerned workmen, the Appellants
shall do so."
7.7. In Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vrs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 = (2023) 3 SCC 639, it
has been stated as follows:
"*** The Division Bench rightly held that the learned
Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as
given by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and
Others Vrs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, as
initial appointment must be done by the competent
authority and there must be a sanctioned post on
which the daily rated employee must be working.
***"
7.8. It may be apt to refer to Ranjeet Kumar Das Vrs. State of
Odisha, 2018 (I) ILR-CUT 695, wherein relevant portion of
the Judgment runs as follows:
"7. Before delving into the niceties of the order passed
by the tribunal, this Court deems it proper to
examine the claims of the petitioner on the basis of
the factual matrix available on record itself. On the
basis of the pleadings available before this Court, no
doubt the petitioner had approached the tribunal
seeking regularization of his services.
Regularization in service law connotes official
formalisation of an appointment, which was
made on temporary or ad hoc or stop gap or
casual basis or the like, in deviation from the
normal rules of applicable norms of
appointment. Such formalisation makes the
appointment regular. The ordinary meaning of
regularisation is "to make regular" according to The
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition, and
according to Black‟s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, the
word "regular" means:
„Conformable to law. Steady or uniform in course,
practice, or occurrence; not subject to unexplained or
irrational variation. Usual, customary, normal or
general. Gerald Vrs. American Cas. Co of Reading,
Pa., D.C.N.C., 249 F, Supp. 355, 357. Made
according to rule, duly authorised, formed after
uniform type; built or arranged according to
established plan, law, or principle. Antonym of
"casual" or "occasional," Palle Vrs. Industrial
Commission, 79 Utah 47, 7 P. 2d. 248, 290.‟
8. The above being the meaning of "regular", as per the
common parlance given in dictionary, in B.N.
Nagarajan, Vrs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC
1676 = (1979) 4 SCC 507, the apex Court held that
the effect of such regularization would depend on
the object or purpose for which the regularization is
made or the stage at which it is made. Once
regularized, the procedural infirmities which
attended the appointment are cured. Regularization,
however, does not necessarily connote permanence.
9. The word „regular‟ or „regularisation‟ do not
connote permanence and cannot be construed
so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure
of appointments. They are terms calculated to
condone any procedural irregularities and are
meant to cure only such defects as are
attributable to methodology followed in
making the appointments. Relying on the
Judgments of the apex Court in B.N. Nagarajan Vrs.
State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1676 = (1979) 4
SCC 507, the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in
State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1
has also taken the same view, which has also been
followed by the apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd. Vrs. Ashok Ranghba Ambre, (2008) 2
SCC 717 and also in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Vrs. Dan Bahadur Singh, (2007) 6 SCC 207.
10. Temporary or ad hoc or stop gap or casual basis or
the like appointments are made for various reasons.
An emergent situation might make it necessary to
make such appointments. Since the adoption of the
normal method of regular recruitment might involve
considerable delay regulating in failure to tackle the
emergency. Sometimes such appointments were
to be made because although extra hands are
required to meet the workload, there are no
sanctioned posts against which any regular
recruitment could be made. In fact in the case
of ad hoc or casual appointees, the
appointments, are in the majority of cases, not
against sanctioned posts and the appointments
are made because of the necessity of workload
and the constraints of sanctioning such post
(mainly on financial consideration) on
permanent basis. Needless to say that filling up
vacancies against sanctioned posts by
regularisation is against the constitutional provisions
of equality of opportunity in the matter of public
employment violating Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution by not making the offer of employment
to the world at large and allowing all eligible
candidates equality of opportunity to be considered
on merits. If that be so, considering the emergent
necessity of filling up of vacancies and allowing the
petitioner to continue for a quite long period, even if
with one day break in service, cannot be stated to be
a reasonable one, rather, this is an unfair and
unreasonable action of the authority concerned.
***
12. In view of above constitutional philosophy, whether
Courts can remain as mute spectator, is a matter to
be considered to achieve the constitutional goal in
proper perspective. But all these questions had come
up for consideration and decided by the Constitution
Bench of the apex Court in Umadevi (3) mentioned
supra. The factual matrix of the case in Umadevi (3)
arose for consideration from a judgment of
Karnataka High Court. In some of the cases, the
Karnataka High Court rejected the claims of
persons, who had been temporarily engaged as
daily wagers but were continued for more than 10
years in the Commercial Taxes Department of the
State of Karnataka for regularization as permanent
employees and their entitlement to all the benefits of
regular employees. Another set of civil appeals arose
from the order passed by the same High Court on a
writ petition challenging the order of the government
directing cancellation of appointments of all casual
workers/daily rated workers and seeking a further
direction for the regularization of all such daily wage
earners engaged by the State or local bodies. These
claims were rejected by the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court on appeal from the judgment
of the learned Single Judge. The reason for the
mater being considered by the Constitution Bench
arose because of two earlier orders of reference
made by a Bench of two-Judge and subsequently by
a Bench of three-Judge- Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (1) (2004) 7 SCC 132, and
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (2)
(2006) 4 SCC 44, respectively, as they noticed the
conflicting opinions expressed by the earlier 3 Bench
judgments in relation to regularization."
7.9. In Patitapaban Dutta Dash Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C)
No. 19951 of 2020, vide Judgment dated 09.09.2021, a
Single Bench of this Court has made the following
observation:
"8. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Court comes
into picture only to ensure observance of
fundamental rights, and to ensure the rule of law
and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a
fair ideal to its employees consistent with
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, and that the authority should not
exploit its employees nor should it seek to take
advantage of the helplessness and misery of either
the unemployed persons or the employees, as the
case may be. For this very reason, it is held that a
person should not be kept in contractual, temporary
or ad hoc status for a long period. Where a
contractual, temporary or ad hoc appointment is
continued for long, the Court presumes that there is
need of a regular post and accordingly directs for
regularization. While issuing direction for
regularization, the Court must first ascertain
the relevant fact, and must be cognizant of the
several situations and eventualities that may
arise on account of such direction. If for any
reason, a contractual, ad hoc or temporary
employee is continued for a fairly long spell,
the authorities must consider his case for
regularization, provided he is eligible and
qualified according to rules and his service
record is satisfactory and his appointment
does not run counter to the reservation policy
of the State. Even though a casual labourer is
continued for a fairly long spell, say two or three
years, a presumption may arise that there is regular
need for his service. In such a situation, it becomes
obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the
feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the
authorities ought to adopt a positive approach
coupled with empathy for the person."
7.10. Aforesaid Judgment rendered by the Single Judge of this
Court in Patitapaban Dutta Dash (supra) got the seal of
approval of this Court being carried in appeal bearing
W.A. No. 777 of 2021 before the Division Bench, which
came to be disposed of vide Judgment dated 12.04.2023
[see, (2023) (I) ILR-CUT 906]. While directing the State of
Odisha to implement the direction of the Single Judge
"in letter and spirit", this Court in the ultimate held as
follows:
"44. Going by the above legal position, in the present
cases, at the highest, the respondents could be
considered to be „irregularly‟ appointed and
therefore would, even on the touchstone of Umadevi
(supra), be eligible for regularization. The law in M.L.
Kesari (supra), has been reiterated in Amarkant Rai
Vrs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265, Sheo Narain
Nagar Vrs. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 432 = AIR
2018 SC 233 and Rajnish Kumar Mishra Vrs. State
of U.P., (2019) 17 SCC 648."
7.11. Noticing the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vrs.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, in Niranjan Nayak Vrs.
State of Odisha & Others, 2023 (I) OLR 407 the
observation of this Court runs as follows:
"12. Similarly, in the case of Amarendra Kumar
Mahapatra and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and
Others, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC 1716, the
Supreme Court was of the opinion that the
appellants were entitled to regularization in
service having regard to the fact that they have
rendered long years of service on ad hoc basis.
13. In the case at hand, it can be ascertained that the
petitioner was appointed against a substantive
vacant post and he had been discharging his duties
in the said post since 1993. The appointment was
made on an ad hoc basis and was extended from
time to time. Since the petitioner was appointed
against substantive vacancy and the post was
sanctioned by higher authorities, the petitioner
should have been extended the benefit of
regulatisation like other similarly situated persons."
7.12. This Court wishes to take notice of recent view of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India expressed in the case of
Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826,
wherein it has been observed as follows:
"20. It is well established that the decision in
Umadevi (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. In a recent judgment
of this Court in Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India,
(2024) 1 SCR 1230, it was held that held that
procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed "temporary" but has
performed the same duties as performed by the
regular employee over a considerable period in
the capacity of the regular employee. The
relevant paras of this judgment have been
reproduced below:
„6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely
with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants
were employed and have continued their
service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that
have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion
was based on a specific notification for
vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed
by a selection process involving written tests
and interviews, which distinguishes their case
from the appointments through back door entry
as discussed in the case of Umadevi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Umadevi (supra) also
distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments even if were
not made strictly in accordance with the
prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be
said to have been made illegally if they had
followed the procedures of regular
appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present
case. ***"
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial
label of the appellants‟ engagements and the
outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal.
Courts must look beyond the surface labels and
consider the realities of employment: continuous,
long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence
of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments.
In that light, refusing regularization simply
because their original terms did not explicitly
state so, or because an outsourcing policy was
belatedly introduced, would be contrary to
principles of fairness and equity.
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 Declaration [International Labour
Organization-- Tripartite Declaration of Principles
concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social
Policy] 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 judgment of the United State in the
case of Vizcaino Vrs. Microsoft Corporation, 97 F.3d
1187 (9th Cir. 1996) 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 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.
26. While the judgment in Umadevi (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 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
Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment
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."
7.13. In the case of Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221 referring to observations rendered in
Jaggo (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
been pleased to clarify that:
"16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer‟s
inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily
wages with some measure of parity in minimum
pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated
precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were
left in a marginally improved yet still
uncertain status. While the High Court recognized
the importance of their work and hinted at eventual
regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of
service or meaningful back wages commensurate
with the degree of statutory violation evident on
record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer‟s
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in
violation of the most basic labour law principles.
Once it is established that their services were
terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that
they were engaged in essential, perennial duties,
these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual
uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and
compliance with recruitment rules merit
consideration, such concerns do not absolve the
Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable
entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations
cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen
who have served continuously in de facto
regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent
they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-
wage engagement without continuity or meaningful
back wages, is hereby set aside with the following
directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant
Workmen‟s services, effected without
compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
declared illegal. All orders or communications
terminating their services are quashed. In
consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be
treated as continuing in service from the date
of their termination, for all purposes, including
seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the
Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or
posts akin to the duties they previously
performed) within four weeks from the date of
this judgment. Their entire period of absence
(from the date of termination until actual
reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of
service and all consequential benefits, such as
seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant
Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back
wages from the date of their discontinuation
until their actual reinstatement. The
Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid
dues within three months from the date of their
reinstatement.
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."
7.14. In Prafull Kumar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC
OnLine Ori 2416 relying on the General Administration
Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013, it has been
observed as follows:
"8.6. In Sheo Narain Nagar Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2017) 11 SCR 138, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
recognized such employment on temporary status as
on exploitative terms. The pertinent observation
made in the said case is quoted hereunder:
„8. When we consider the prevailing scenario,
it is painful to note that the decision in
Umadevi (Supra) has not been properly
understood and rather wrongly applied by
various State Governments. We have called
for the data in the instant case to ensure as to
how many employees were working on
contract basis or ad-hoc basis or daily-wage
basis in different State departments. We can
take judicial notice that widely aforesaid
practice is being continued. Though this
Court has emphasised that incumbents
should be appointed on regular basis as
per rules but new devise of making
appointment on contract basis has been
adopted, employment is offered on daily
wage basis etc. in exploitative forms. This
situation was not envisaged by Umadevi
(supra). The prime intendment of the decision
was that the employment process should be by
fair means and not by back door entry and in
the available pay scale. That spirit of the
Umadevi (supra) has been ignored and
conveniently over looked by various State
Governments/ authorities. We regretfully make
the observation that Umadevi (supra) has not
been implemented in its true spirit and has not
been followed in its pith and substance. It is
being used only as a tool for not regularizing
the services of incumbents. They are being
continued in service without payment of due
salary for which they are entitled on the basis
of Article 14, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the
Constitution of India as if they have no
constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S.
Nakara Vrs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305
= AIR 1983 SC 130 from cradle to grave. In
heydays of life they are serving on exploitative
terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be
continued and in old age they are going to be
destituted, there being no provision for pension,
retiral benefits etc. There is clear
contravention of constitutional provisions
and aspiration of down trodden class.
They do have equal rights and to make
them equals they require protection and
cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind
of treatment meted out is not only bad but
equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights.
We have to strike a balance to really implement
the ideology of Umadevi (supra). Thus, the time
has come to stop the situation where Umadevi
(supra) can be permitted to be flouted,
whereas, this Court has interdicted such
employment way back in the year 2006. The
employment cannot be on exploitative
terms, whereas Umadevi (supra) laid down
that there should not be back door entry
and every post should be filled by regular
employment, but a new device has been
adopted for making appointment on
payment of paltry system on contract/
adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action
is not permissible, when we consider the pith
and substance of true spirit in Umadevi
(supra).
9. Coming to the facts of the instant case, there
was a direction issued way back in the year
1999, to consider the regularization of the
appellants. However, regularization was not
done. The respondents chose to give minimum
of the pay scale, which was available to the
regular employees, way back in the year 2000
and by passing an order, the appellants were
also conferred temporary status in the year
2006, with retrospective effect on 2.10.2002.
As the respondents have themselves
chosen to confer a temporary status to the
employees, as such there was requirement
at work and posts were also available at
the particular point of time when order
was passed. Thus, the submission raised by
learned counsel for the respondent that posts
were not available, is belied by their own
action. Obviously, the order was passed
considering the long period of services
rendered by the appellants, which were
taken on exploitative terms.
10. The High Court dismissed the writ application
relying on the decision in Uma devi (supra).
But the appellants were employed
basically in the year 1993; they had
rendered service for three years, when
they were offered the service on contract
basis; it was not the case of back door
entry; and there were no Rules in place for
offering such kind of appointment. Thus,
the appointment could not be said to be illegal
and in contravention of Rules, as there were no
such Rules available at the relevant point of
time, when their temporary status was
conferred with effect from 02.10.2002. The
appellants were required to be appointed
on regular basis as a one-time measure, as
laid down in paragraph 53 of Umadevi
(supra). Since the appellants had
completed 10 years of service and
temporary status had been given by the
respondents with retrospective effect in
the 02.10.2002, we direct that the
services of the appellants be regularized
from the said date i.e. 02.10.2002,
consequential benefits and the arrears of
pay also to be paid to the appellants
within a period of three months from
today.‟
8.7. It is manifest from record that by now the petitioner
Appellant, being appointed by duly authorized
Appointing Authority, has completed more than 10
years of service, which is requisite length of service
for consideration of regularization in service as per
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 [although the
Government of Odisha has accepted six years of
satisfactory service for regularization in terms of
Resolution dated 17.09.2013 read with Resolution
dated 16.01.2014] and the authorities of the
Regional Transport Officer employed the petitioner-
Appellant and extended his terms in service
voluntarily and continuously for more than ten
years."
Analysis:
8. Conspectus of legal perspective leads this Court to opine
that the rejection of claim of the petitioners as
communicated in Letter dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure-8)
taking shelter of Umadevi (3) (supra) is unjustified in
view of Jaggo (supra) and Shripal (supra).
8.1. This Court proceeds to consider the plight of the
petitioners vis-à-vis similarly situated persons whose
cases being taken up, are regularised in service. With
reference to Deepak Kumar Mohanty Vrs. TP Central
Odisha Distribution Limited, W.P.(C) No.2688 of 2016,
vide Judgment dated 06.04.2021 it has been submitted
by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that
since by virtue of Bi-partite Settlement certain personnel
having been considered for regularisation in service, the
same benefit should have been extended to the case of
the petitioners. This Court appreciates vociferous
argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that as
the services of the petitioners, Non-ITI Workers, having
been utilised for the purpose of Operation and
Maintenance, and they have been working till date
uninterruptedly since 2005-07, the authorities should
have maintained parity in treatment without any
reservation on technical considerations. The opposite
parties could not assert additional factor/ground by way
of counter affidavit to supplement the order of rejection.
In the Letter dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure-8) it has been
admitted by the CESU that the 121 Non-ITI personnel
are "working in Operation and Maintenance Activities",
yet their case for regularisation was not considered
using the shield of Umadevi (3) (supra). However, in view
of subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
discussed in the foregoing paragraphs would make it
clear that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for
regularisation.
8.2. The claim of the petitioners for regularisation with such
additional ground cannot be considered in this writ
proceeding in view of settle position of law laid down in
Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR
1978 SC 851. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph
8 of said reported decision observed as follows:
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on
certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the
reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning
may, by the time it comes to court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds later
brought out. We may here draw attention to the
observations of Bose, J. in Commissioner of Police,
Bombay Vrs. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 =
AIR 1952 SC 16:
„Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light
of explanations subsequently given by the officer
making the order of what he meant, or of what was
in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders
made by public authorities are meant to have public
effect and are intended to affect the actings and
conduct of those to whom they are addressed and
must be construed objectively with reference to the
language used in the order itself.‟ ***"
8.3. Reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the
following paragraphs of Judgment rendered in Deepak
Kumar Mohanty (supra):
"7. For the aforesaid direction and keeping in view the
development through the Tripartite Settlement as
well as the development through Annexure-1
allowing the petitioners to participate in a Written
Test finding them qualified in such Written Test
further they have been called upon to attend the
viva-voce test and such viva-voce test has not only
been conducted but result thereof has also been kept
in sealed cover. This Court is unable to
appreciate the application of Umadevi (supra)
to the case of the petitioners and rejecting
their case thereby. It is for the aforesaid
development up till allowing the petitioners to attend
the viva-voce test and after holding the viva-voce test
in terms of the settlement at Clause-6 of the
Tripartite 8 Settlement involved herein, it is open to
the Competent Authority to declare the result of the
petitioners in the viva voce test and dependant on
their merit in the viva-voce test vis-a-vis the
interview altogether. Action as appropriate for
regularization should have been taken only in terms
of Tripartite Settlement. It is in this view of the
matter and for wrong application of Umadevi (supra)
to the case of the petitioners, this Court finds the
impugned order at Annexure-4 is a mechanical and
illegal disposal one and it is in this view of the
matter this Court sets aside the order at Annexure-4
and while allowing the Writ Petition directs the
Competent Authority, the contesting opposite parties
or substituted owner in the meantime if any to open
the sealed cover involving the petitioners, in the viva-
voce test dependant on the outcome in the viva-voce
test take decision in the matter of interview involving
the petitioners on the aspect of their regularization in
the post of Clerk-B (trainee) by undertaking the
complete exercise within a period of one and half
months from the date of communication of the order
by either party."
8.4. With the aforesaid backdrop, while it is reflected in the
Letter dated 04.01.2020 that, the petitioners, Non-ITI
personnel are working in Operation and Maintenance
Activities, they should not have been discriminated while
certain other similarly situated counterparts have been
considered for regularisation.
8.5. In this connection Ravi Verma and others Vrs. Union of
India and others, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3860 may
fruitfully be referred to, wherein the following are the
observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"4. The appellants were appointed as casual employees
in the Income Tax Department in the year 1993-1994
since then they were working continuously. On 30th
January 2004 with respect to other similarly
situated employees, temporary status was granted.
The respondent No. 4 on 30th December 2004
recommended the case of the appellants for
temporary status/regularization. Again it was
recommended for regularization on 14.06.2005. In
the meantime, the decision in the State of Karnataka
Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was pronounced by
this Court, the same provided that the employees
who had rendered services continuously for ten
years without the cover of the court‟s order be
regularized as the one-time measure.
8. Again on 07.11.2007/19.11.2007 information was
forwarded along with a recommendation for the
regularization of services of the appellant and again
on 01.01.2008 and 31.01.2008 also,
recommendations were made. However services
were not regularized, through Chief Commissioner,
Income Tax, U.P. West, Ghaziabad regularized
similarly placed 88 casual employees on
30.01.2009. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax
Orissa, Bhubaneshwar also regularized similarly
situated eight employees on 12.03.2009; orders of
regularization have been placed on record
respectively as Annexures P1 and P2. However,
similar treatment was not accorded to the
appellants.
9. On 01.06.2009 appellants 1, 2 and 3 were
sanctioned minimum of regular pay scale of Group D
employees with Dearness Allowance in accordance
with DoPT Circular dated 31.05.2004 and in terms
of the orders of CCIT dated 07.11.2007 and
06.12.2007 on conferral temporary of status on the
employees. On 22.09.2009, Chief Commissioner,
Income Tax, Kolkata also regularized 111 similarly
situated casual employees and 17 employees on
15.10.1990 and Chief Commissioner, Income Tax,
Lucknow regularized 59 similarly situated casual
employees on 22.01.2010. There was further
regularization of 35 employees of the office of Chief
Commissioner, Income Tax, Patna on 20.08.2010.
However, the claim of the appellants was
rejected by respondent No. 3 though they had
served continuously for more than ten years
and fulfill the requisite criteria for the purpose
of regularization in terms of the circulars of
DoPT and the decision rendered by this Court
in Umadevi (supra). The appellants have also
given the vacancy position.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at
length, we are of the considered opinion that
appointments were only irregular one, this Court
observed in para 53 Umadevi (supra) thus:
„53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 = AIR 1967
SC 1071, R.N. Nanjundappa, (1972) 1 SCC 409
= (1972) 2 SCR 799 and B.N. Nagarajan,
(1979) 4 SCC 507 = (1979) 3 SCR 937 and
referred to in para 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 the courts
or of tribunals. The question of regularisation 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
regularise 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 the 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 wagers
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 sub judice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed
as per the constitutional scheme.‟
13. In view of the aforesaid decision, the circulars and
regularization of the similarly situated
employees at other places and various
recommendation that were made the services
of the appellants ought to have been
regularized in the year 2006; discriminatory
treatment has been meted out to them. As per
the decision of Umadevi (supra), they were
entitled to regularization of services; they did
not serve under the cover of court's order.
Illegality has been committed by not directing
regularization of services."
8.6. Reference is also made to paragraphs 4 and 8 of Raman
Kumar and others Vrs. Union of India and others, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1018, wherein the following are the
observations:
"4. The matter arises out of regularization of the
employees. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in
his report dated 14.02.2013 found that, in the
exercise conducted in pursuance of the judgment of
this Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, though 65
employees were found to be entitled for
regularization, only 35 employees were regularized.
This was done since only 35 vacancies were
available.
8. Indisputably, the appellants herein have completed
service of more than ten years. Even this Court in
the case of Ravi Verma Vrs. Union of India (Civil
Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018) decided on
13.03.2018 found that the act of regularizing the
services of some employees and not regularizing the
services of the others is discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
8.7. Such being the position, it is unequivocal that the
petitioners cannot be discriminated on the plea that the
decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) poses a barrier for
consideration of regularisation in service.
CONCLUSION & DECISION:
9. In the wake of discussions made above and views
expressed through decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India as also this Court and other High Courts,
taking into consideration the material available on
record it is necessary that the opposite parties of the
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha are required
to take fresh decision with respect to regularization in
service of the petitioners.
9.1. Impugned in the present case is the decisions of 45th
and 49th Board Meeting held on 02.09.2015 and
24.09.2016 respectively as reflected in Letter Ref.No.
CESU/HR/18-11/2012 (Vol-II)/259, dated 04.01.2020
issued by Senior General Manager (HR) of Central
Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha addressed to the
Additional Secretary to the Government of Odisha in
Department of Energy. Glance at said letter it reveals
that the regularization of 121 Non-ITI personnel working
in Operation and Management Activities being engaged
through outsourcing agency in the light of judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 could not be considered. Bereft such reason, no
other impediment has been cited by the Board. Further
minute reading of said letter reveals that weightage
would be given to those employees/workers in the future
recruitment process.
9.2. As is apparent from said communication, no question is
raised with respect to the experience of those workers in
the Operation and Maintenance Activities. There is
nothing in the said letter to show that they have not
been engaged since 2005-07 as Non-ITI Helpers in
erstwhile Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha.
There is nothing on record placed by the opposite parties
to suggest that they are not continuing with the work
entrusted to them as on date. Rather the Board of
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha conscious to
consider their experience and long standing contribution
to the Organisation in the Operation and Maintenance
Activities or otherwise by giving weightage in future
recruitment that would be carried out by the opposite
parties.
9.3. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India post-Umadevi (3) (supra) in subsequent judgments
as referred to in foregoing paragraphs including Jaggo
and Shripal is relevant in the present context. This Court
has also on earlier occasions and recently followed the
same and directed the authorities concerned to consider
the case of personnel engaged in the
Organisations/Institutions by resorting to outsourcing
process vis-à-vis roles performed by temporary
employees/NMR/DLR/Contractual/ad hoc or any other
name whatsoever. The Courts have deprecated
replacement of one set of exploited workers with
another. With strong words, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that "This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to
bypass the obligation to offer regular employment".
10. Regard being had to the decisions on the subject and the
factual matrix as obtained from the pleadings of
respective parties, diligently considering the arguments,
contentions and submissions advanced by counsel for
respective parties, this Court is of the strong opinion
that the decision taken by the Board of Central
Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha as communicated in
Letter dated 04.01.2020 cannot withstand judicial
scrutiny.
10.1. It may be worthy of notice at this juncture the following
expression of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as
found in Gujarat Agricultural University Vrs. Rathod
Labhu Bechar, (2001) 3 SCC 574:
"17. From the aforesaid, it emerges that the learned
Single Judge had concurred with the finding of the
Tribunal that the contesting workmen have been
working in the appellant University regularly
for a long number of years. The existence of
permanent nature of work was inferred on this
account and also due to the vastness of the
appellant‟s establishment. The regularisation
is claimed only in respect of Class IV
employees. The main objection which was
raised earlier and is raised before us, is that a
person could only be regularised on any vacant
post and if there be one he should be qualified
for the same as per qualifications, if any,
prescribed. In fact, the Tribunal has held that
on the date of the award, most of the workmen
had completed 10 years of their service. It is
also well settled, if work is taken by the
employer continuously from the daily-wage
workers for a long number of years without
considering their regularisation for its
financial gain as against employees‟ legitimate
claim, has been held by this Court repeatedly
as an unfair labour practice. In fact, taking
work from a daily-wage worker or an ad hoc
appointee is always viewed to be only for a
short period or as a stopgap arrangement, but
we find that a new culture is growing to
continue with it for a long time, either for
financial gain or for controlling its workers
more effectively with a sword of Damocles
hanging over their heads or to continue with
favoured ones in the cases of ad hoc employees
withstalling competent and legitimate
claimants. Thus we have no hesitation to
denounce this practice. If the work is of such a
nature, which has to be taken continuously
and in any case when this pattern becomes
apparent, whey they continue to work for year
after year, the only option to the employer is to
regularise them. Financial viability, no doubt, is
one of the considerations but then such enterprise or
institution should not spread its arms longer than its
means. The consequent corollary is, where work
taken is not for a short period or limited for a season
or where work is not of a part-time nature and if
pattern shows that work is to be taken continuously
year after year, there is no justification to keep such
persons hanging as daily-rate workers. In such a
situation a legal obligation is cast on an employer; if
there be vacant post, to fill it up with such workers
in accordance with rules, if any, and where
necessary by relaxing the qualifications, where long
experience could be equitable with such
qualifications. If no posts exist then duty is cast to
assess the quantum of such work and create such
equivalent posts for their absorption."
10.2. Vide Sri Ganesh Chandra Patra Vrs. State of Odisha,
2025 (II) ILR-CUT 262 Division Bench of this Court has
expressed the following through the observations of
Hon'ble Madras High Court:
"It is apt to refer to the anxious consideration shown by
the Madras High Court in N. Karunanidhi Vrs. Union of
India, W.P. No. 12887 of 2016, vide Judgment dated
22.04.2022 rendered with respect to exploitation of
service. The following benevolent observation has been
made by said Court in favour of the employees, whose
services have been utilized by the Government for a
substantial length of time:
„18. If the Courts cannot give direction for their
regularisation of service, in the constrained legal
scenario what other remedies that are available to
these unfortunate employees, who have been
engaged in service for public purpose, without
having any definite future to hold on? These
petitioners cannot be kept on the tenterhooks
of their employment for years together, by
brushing aside and discarding their concerned
yearning for a definite future, with
unresponsive indifference.
19. A welfare State grounded on constitutional values,
cannot come up with apathetic and callous stand
that despite continued employment of these
petitioners for years together, no semblance of right
is available to them. Such stand by the State is
opposed to constitutional values as enshrined
in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
Courts of course have held that equal opportunity
must be provided in public employment and entry
through back door should be discountenanced.
When Article 21, being violated by the State,
action towards its servants, the consideration
of the Government must primarily be focussed
on alleviating legitimate grievances of its
employees. Even assuming that the recruitment of
these writ petitioners had not been fully in
consonance with the procedure for appointment in
Government services, the fact remained that these
persons have been consciously appointed by the
Government for implementing public projects and the
work has been extracted from them continuously for
several years. It is therefore, not open to the
Government after a period of time to turn around
and contend that these writ petitioners have no right
at all to seek any kind of guarantee for their future.
20. In the opinion of this Court, continued
employment for several years, even on a projects
meant to serve the State as a whole, certain
rights would definitely accrue to them, atleast
to the extent of making a claim for formulation
of a scheme/towards their absorption. This
Court is quite conscious of the fact that the
Government has been benevolent and had come up
with several schemes in the past and directed
regularisation of services of thousands of employees
over a period of time. Such benevolence ought to
permeate to the lowest levels to take within its
sweep the desperate cry of the petitioners as well.
As in the sublime words of the father of nation,
Mahatma Gandhi, „A nation‟s greatness is
measured by how it treats its weakest
members‟. Merely because these writ petitioners
have been employed in the projects, the policy
makers may not shut their mind and close their eyes
to their precarious plight having to serve public
purpose but left in the lurch and unprotected, at the
end of the day.‟ ***"
11. In view of above discussions with conspectus of legal
approach of various Courts, this Court has no option
but to observe that the decision of the Board in the 45th
Meeting and the 49th Meeting held on 02.09.2015 and
24.09.2016 as reflected in the Letter dated 04.01.2020
(Annexure-8) is not in consonance with law and cannot
be countenanced. Having thus observed, the decisions of
the Board in its 45th Meeting dated 02.09.2015 and
reaffirmed in its 49th Meeting dated 24.09.2016 are set
aside. It is, therefore, directed that the competent
authorities may take up the claim of the petitioners and
consider their case for regularisation in service or absorb
them in service.
11.1. Needless to state that while taking fresh decision, the
opposite parties shall not be biased by any of the
constraints that prevailed in taking earlier decisions in
the Meeting of the Board.
11.2. It is hoped and trusted that the opposite parties shall
take pragmatic decision in the light of the above position
of law. It may be observed that keeping in view that the
petitioners have been waiting for their turn to be
Signature Not regularised in service or absorption in positions in
Verified
Digitally Signed service for long since, being engaged during 2005-07,
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-Charge)
the opposite parties-competent authorities shall
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH
COURT, CUTTACK complete the entire exercise within a period of three
Date: 25-Jul-2025 13:56:59
months from date.
12. In the result, the writ petitions [W.P.(C) No. 13753 of
2020 and W.P.(C) No.13752 of 2020] stand disposed of
along with all pending Interlocutory Applications, if any,
but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 25th July, 2025//Aswini/Bichi/Laxmikant
