Orissa High Court
Padmanava Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 28 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022
Padmanava Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. P.N. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 28.07.2025
09. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard Mr. P.N. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, learned
Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite
parties.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,
Padmanav Mishra seeking quashing the order dated
27.07.2022 passed by the Director, Economics and
Statistics, Odisha, Bhubaneswar under Annexure:8 and a
further direction to the opposite parties to regularize the
services of the petitioner against the post of Chowkidar-
cum-Sweeper.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and has heavily relying upon the
recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Jaggo vs. Union of India & others, reported in 2024
INSC 1034, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
thus:
"12. Despite being labelled as "part-time
workers," the appellants performed these
essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis
over extensive periods, ranging from over a
decade to nearly two decades. Their
engagement was not sporadic or temporary in
nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and
akin to the responsibilities typically associated
with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the
respondents did not engage any other
personnel for these tasks during the
appellants' tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these
were not regular posts lacks merit, as the
nature of the work performed by the appellants
was perennial and fundamental to the
functioning of the offices. The recurring nature
of these duties necessitates their classification
as regular posts, irrespective of how their
initial engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of
these same tasks to private agencies after the
appellants' termination demonstrates the
inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set
of workers with another, further underscores
that the work in question was neither
temporary nor occasional.
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants'
services, following dismissal of their Original
Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary
and devoid of any justification. The termination
letters, issued without prior notice or
explanation, violated fundamental principles of
natural justice. It is a settled principle of law
that even contractual employees are entitled to
a fair hearing before any adverse action is
taken against them, particularly when their
service records are unblemished. In this case,
the appellants were given no opportunity to be
heard, nor were they provided any reasons for
their dismissal, which followed nearly two
decades of dedicated service.
**** ***** *****
16. The appellants' consistent performance
over their long tenures further solidifies their
claim for regularization. At no point during
their engagement did the respondents raise
any issues regarding their competence or
performance. On the contrary, their services
were extended repeatedly over remuneration,
the though years, and their minimal, was
incrementally increased which was an implicit
acknowledgment of their satisfactory
performance. The respondents' belated plea of
alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an
afterthought and lacks credibility.
**** ***** *****
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."
He further relied on another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shripal & another vs.
Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad, reported in 2025 INSC 144,
in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"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."
Learned counsel for the State submits that in view
of the nature of the dispute between the parties and in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
matter can be settled in the mediation.
In view of such submission made by the learned
counsel for the State and on consensus of both the
parties, this matter is referred to the Special Mediation
Drive-Mediation for the Nation for the purpose of exploring
possibility of a settlement.
Registry is directed to send the records of this case
to the Coordinator of the Orissa High Court Mediation
Centre, who on receipt of the same shall issue notice to
the parties concerned by fixing a date for appearance and
submit a report before this Court by the end of August
2025.
List this matter after receipt of the mediation
report.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Subhasis Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 28-Jul-2025 18:15:02
