Orissa High Court
Odisha Industrial Infrastructure vs State Of Odisha on 29 July, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.A. No.569 of 2025
&
W.A. No.643 of 2025
In the matter of Appeals under Article 4 of
the Orissa High Court Order, 1948
read with
Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting
the High Court of Judicature at Patna
and
Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII
of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948
***
W.A. No.569 of 2025
1. Odisha Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation
Represented through
Chairman, Board of Director, IDCO
At: IDCO Towers, Janpath
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Odisha Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation
At: IDCO Towers, Janpath
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
3. Chief General Manager (P&A)
Odisha Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation
At: IDCO Towers, Janpath
Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha. ... Appellants
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 1 of 28
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
represented through
Secretary, Department of Industry
Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar
Khordha.
2. Finance Secretary
Department of Finance
At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar
Khordha.
3. Chief Secretary
Government of Odisha
At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
4. Secretary
Water Resources Department
At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
5. Secretary, P & E Department
At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar, Khordha. ... Pro forma Respondents.
6. Prasant Kumar Panigrahy
Son of Magati Panigrahy
At present working as
Junior Engineer (Civil), IDCO
Cuttack Division
Cuttack. ... Respondent.
W.A. No.643 of 2025
Prasant Kumar Panigrahy
Aged about 52 years
Son of Late Magati Panigrahy
At/P.O.: Kulagarh, District: Ganjam
At present working as
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 2 of 28
Junior Manager (Civil), IDCO
Berhampur Division
Ganjam ... Appellant
-VERSUS-
1. Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation, Odisha
Represented through
Chairman, Board of Director, IDCO
At: IDCO Towers
Janpath, Bhubaneswar
Khordha.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation, Odisha
At: IDCO Towers, Janpath
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
3. Chief General Manager (P&A)
Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation, Odisha
At: IDCO Towers, Janpath
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
4. State of Odisha
Represented through
Secretary, Department of Industry
Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar
Khordha.
5. Finance Secretary
Department of Finance
At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
6. Chief Secretary
Government of Odisha
At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 3 of 28
7. Secretary
Water Resources Department
At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
8. Secretary, P&E Department
At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat
Bhubaneswar
Khordha. ... Respondents.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
W.A. No.569 of 2025
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
assisted by
M/s. Pronoy Mohanty,
S.K. Sahu, K.T. Mudali, P. Pani,
K. Panda, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Bimbisar Dash,
Nos.1 to 5 Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Asok Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate
W.A. No.643 of 2025
For the Appellant : Mr. Asok Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty,
Nos.1 to 3 Senior Advocate
assisted by
M/s. Pronoy Mohanty,
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 4 of 28
S.K. Sahu, K.T. Mudali, P. Pani,
K. Panda, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Bimbisar Dash,
Nos.4 to 8 Additional Government Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
AND
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2025 :: Date of Order : 29.07.2025
O RDER
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.--
Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation,
Odisha and others (opposite parties in the writ petition)
and Prasant Kumar Panigrahi (petitioner in the writ
petition) have challenged the judgment dated 17th
December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.21376 of 2022 in
the instant Writ Appeals, being W.A. Nos.569 of 2025
and 643 of 2025 respectively.
As both the instant Writ Appeals arise out of the same
judgment dated 17th December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C)
No.21376 of 2022, they were taken up together for
hearing and are disposed of by this common order.
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 5 of 28
THE FACTS IN W.A. NO.569 OF 2025:
2. Facts as detailed by Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation, Odisha (for brevity "IDCO")
reveal that the respondent No.6 (Prasant Kumar
Panigrahy, for convenience, hereinafter referred to as
"PKP") appointed in the year 2007 as Junior Engineer
(Civil) on contractual basis, claimed for regularization by
way of a writ petition, registered as W.P.(C) No.934 of
2016, which was disposed of by an order dated 16th
September, 2019 with a direction to consider the case of
PKP for regularization in service and extension of
consequential benefits. The service of PKP along with
other similarly situated employees was absorbed in
regular establishment against Junior Engineer (Civil)
post with effect from 13th March, 2020 by office order
dated 26th June, 2020.
2.1. For antedating the date of absorption in service upon
completion of six years of contractual service from the
date of initial appointment, a writ petition, W.P.(C)
No.9701 of 2022, being filed, was disposed of vide order
dated 29.04.2022 with a direction to consider the
representation by affording an opportunity of hearing to
PKP. Having afforded opportunity of hearing while
rejecting the claim for antedating the date of
regularization for the reason that his claim for promotion
would be governed by the Odisha Industrial
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 6 of 28
Infrastructure Development Corporation (Method of
Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2019
(for short "IDCO Service Regulations, 2019"),
whereunder minimum five years of service in Junior
Engineer (Civil) is specified as the eligibility criteria for
promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Civil).
2.2. As PKP is regularized in service on 13th March, 2020, he
having not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion in
the rank of Assistant Manager (Civil), the Authority has
taken a decision not to act according to Rule 9 of the
Odisha Diploma Engineers Service (Method of
Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (for
short "Rules, 2012") as notified by the Government of
Odisha in the Water Resources Department read with
amendment thereto vide Notification dated 29th August,
2015.
2.3. Challenging such refusal, PKP and others approached
this Court by way of filing W.P.(C) No.934 of 2016,
wherein prayer was made to quash the orders dated 21 st
November, 2015 and 16th December, 2015 with a
direction to the concerned Authorities to regularize their
services in terms of Rule 10 of the Odisha Group-C and
Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013
(for short "Rules, 2013") in view of the decision taken in
101st and 79th Board meetings held on 19th May, 2015
and 29th March, 2010 respectively. Having recorded the
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 7 of 28
submission that the petitioners therein had already
rendered more than ten years of service, this Court in
said W.P.(C) No.934 of 2016 passed the following order:
"***
Since the petitioners are continuing as contractual Junior
Engineers for more than 13 years, their cases have to be
considered for regularization in terms of the Regulations,
2019, which have already been approved by the
Government. As Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for
opposite parties-Corporation states that process for
regularization has already been started and shall be
completed soon, in that view of the matter, the relief
sought has already been granted to the petitioners.
Thereby, the orders dated 21.11.2015 and 16.12.2015 in
Annexures-13 and 14 respectively are hereby quashed
and the matter is remitted back to the opposite parties
no.1 to 3 Corporation to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularization and grant all consequential
benefits in terms of the Regulations framed by the
authority within a period of six months from the date of
communication of this order."
2.4. Though services of PKP was regularized in terms of the
IDCO Service Regulations, 2019 in compliance of order
dated 16th September, 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.934 of
2016, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.21376 of
2022 was filed. The learned Single Judge while disposing
of the said writ petition vide order dated 17th December,
2024, held as follows:
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 8 of 28
"13. For the reasons stated above, the order of
regularization under Annexure-11 is modified to the
extent that such period of service rendered by the
petitioner upon completion of six years of his
contractual service from the date of initial
appointment should be counted towards his regular
service. However, the petitioner would not be
entitled for any such financial benefits for
antedating his date of regularization as such.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed with a
direction to the Opposite Parties to grant all such
service benefits in favour of the petitioner to count
his service in the regular establishment for such
other service benefits, except financial benefits."
2.5. IDCO has challenged the said judgment dated 17th
December, 2024 in Writ Appeal No.569 of 2025 inter alia
on the ground that on the date of consideration for
regularization, since IDCO Service Regulations, 2019 is
in vogue, the learned Single Judge misdirected by
directing to treat the regularization in service on
completion of six years from the date of initial
engagement/appointment of PKP.
The facts in W.A. No.643 of 2025:
3. Writ Appeal No.643 of 2025 is at the instance of PKP
being partially dissatisfied with the judgment dated 17th
December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.21376 of 2022.
3.1. With the substantial facts, as narrated by IDCO and
culled out supra, additional facts which emanate from
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 9 of 28
the Writ Appeal of PKP, reveal that he joined the Office of
the IDCO in the year 2007 as Junior Engineer (Civil) on
contractual basis being sponsored by a Government
panel, the CGM (P&A) agreed to take into consideration
all the Junior Engineers as per extant practice prevailing
at the relevant point of time and on 30th May, 2009, the
Management of IDCO extended the benefit of house rent,
medical allowance, conveyance allowance, uniforms, TA
and DA in favour of PKP as admissible to Junior
Engineer of the Corporation, but later on the
Management found that PKP was not originally IDCO
recruited employee and brought from Government panel,
such benefits were withdrawn and sought to be
recovered. However, later on, PKP being sponsored from
Government panel in the year 2007 having joined on 9th
October, 2007, IDCO agreed to restore all facilities as per
Government guidelines in view of Letter No.7135 dated
21st April, 2007 of CGM (P&A) communicated to
Engineer-in-Chief (Civil), Odisha and, accordingly, the
petitioner was allowed all such benefits.
3.2. As per General Administration Department Resolution
No.26108 dated 17th September, 2013, the Government
regularized services of all Junior Engineers sponsored
from Government panel on completion of six years of
service, but IDCO did not extend the said benefit in
favour of PKP. Even after six years of completion in
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 10 of 28
service in the year 2013, as PKP was not absorbed /
regularized and his claim was rejected, having
approached this Court, his matter was considered by the
competent authorities. PKP was finally absorbed in the
regular establishment by office order dated 26th June,
2020. Since his past services were not recognized while
specifying the effective date of regularization as 13th
March, 2020, PKP filed W.P.(C) No.21376 of 2022 for
antedating the date with effect from 9th October, 2013 as
he completed six years continuous service in IDCO from
the date of initial appointment, i.e., 9th October, 2013.
He also claimed for consequential benefits like
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and
upwards with all financial consequential benefits.
3.3. Though this Court by judgment dated 17th December,
2014 disposed of the said writ petition by acknowledging
completion of six years on contractual service from the
date of initial appointment since 9th October, 2007,
directed for antedating effective date of regularization
and extension of all service benefits "except financial
benefits". PKP being aggrieved by the same, i.e., "except
financial benefits", has filed Writ Appeal No.643 of 2025.
THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS:
4. Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate
being assisted by Sri Pronoy Mohanty, learned counsel
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 11 of 28
submitted that the factual narration in the pleadings are
not disputed and date of initial appointment on
contractual basis is also not disputed. He laid emphasis
on IDCO Service Regulations, 2019 and submitted that
this Court appreciating the submission of the counsel
for IDCO that the process for regularization had
commenced, vide order dated 16th September, 2019 in
W.P.(C) No.934 of 2016 directed IDCO to consider the
case of PKP for regularization and grant of consequential
benefits in terms of the Regulations framed by the
Authority. Therefore, the learned Single Judge should
not have found fault with the approach of the IDCO
Authorities by fixing date of regularization as "13th
March, 2020".
5. Sri Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate being
assisted by Sri Sanjib Mohanty, learned counsel
vehemently submitted that since PKP was sponsored by
the Government panel maintained by the Engineer-in-
Chief at the relevant point of time and was engaged since
9th October 2007, at right point of time had his case
been taken up for consideration in view of 101st and 79th
Board meetings held on 19th May, 2015 and 29th March,
2010 respectively, he would have been considered for
regularization in terms of Rules, 2013 or the Notification
dated 17.09.2013. Therefore, essentially, it is submitted
on behalf of PKP that the case of the petitioner along
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 12 of 28
with others was recommended for regularization based
on the circular of the Government of Odisha in Works
Department, Resolution No.16200-FE-II(P)-60/2008-W.
Upon satisfactory completion of six years of
uninterrupted engagement in view of its 118th Board
meeting of IDCO held on 13th March, 2020, it is fervently
urged by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for PKP
that he should have been extended the financial benefits
from the date of completion of six years in service having
acknowledged the date of initial appointment as "9th
October, 2007". The order of the learned Single Judge
containing "except financial benefits" is required to be
modified and suitable directions be issued to the
Authorities to give effect to accordingly.
6. Considered the materials available in the record in the
writ petition as well as the Writ Appeals. Having regard
to the pleadings contained in the writ petition as well as
writ appeals, it is transpired that the learned Single
Judge has meticulously recorded undisputed factual
position.
6.1. It is pertinent to note that PKP was initially appointed on
contractual basis and joined service on 9th October,
2007 being sponsored from the panel maintained by the
Engineer-in-Chief (Civil).
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 13 of 28
6.2. Rule 37 of the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation (Method of Recruitment &
Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2019 (Annexure-G to
the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition) reads as
follows:
"37. Transitory provisions for Existing Employee.--
All persons holding different posts under the
administrative control of the Corporation at the
commencement of these Regulations shall be
deemed to have been appointed as per provisions of
these Regulations and their conditions of service
shall be governed by the said provisions."
6.3. It is also noteworthy at this juncture to have reference to
118th Board meeting of IDCO held on 13th March, 2020
(Annexure-J to the counter affidavit of the writ petition),
wherein the following does find place:
"The Resolution No.16200-FE-II(P)-60/2008-W of Works
Department, Government of Odisha says that after
satisfactory completion of six years of uninterrupted
engagement, the Junior Engineer appointed on contractual
basis out of the panel sponsored by the Committee of the
Chief Engineer maintained by the Engineer-in-Chief (Civil)
may be considered for absorption in regular
establishment/post with regular scale of pay attached to
the post of Junior Engineer, subject to availability of
sanctioned vacant post in the cadre of the respective
department."
6.4. The learned Single Judge along with necessary material
facts supported by documentary evidence having laid
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 14 of 28
stress on such decision taken in the 118th Board
meeting of IDCO held on 13th March, 2020 and IDCO
Service Regulations, 2019, observed as follows:
"11. It is true that as per the decision of the board
meeting of IDCO (Opposite Parties) dated 7th March
2020 (Annexure-J), the case of the Petitioner along
with others were recommended for regularization
based on the Circular of the Government of Odisha
in Works Department in Resolution No.16200-FE-
II(P)-60/2008 upon satisfactory completion of 6
years of uninterrupted engagement. The Petitioner
was undoubtedly engaged against a sanctioned
post for being selected out of the panel prepared by
the Government. So it is not the case that the
Petitioner was never entitled to regularization prior
to coming into force of 2019 Regulations, but it is
also found true that in terms of the 2019 Regulations
such employees already under administrative
control of IDCO should be absorbed as such by
operation of the transitory provisions in terms of
Rule 37 of the Regulations. It is not that the
provisions of 2019 Regulations prohibit
regularization of service of any such employee prior
to the date of coming into force of the same, and the
instances of regularization in IDCO upon completion
of six years of service prior to coming into force of
2019 Regulations are not dearth on record.
Therefore, the submission of Mr. P.K. Mohanty,
learned Senior Counsel for IDCO to debar the
Petitioners from the benefits of regularization from
such date prior to coming into force of 2019
Regulations is found incorrect and unsubstantiated.
Since it was the practice of the Opposite Parties-
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 15 of 28
IDCO to regularize the service of Junior Engineers
appointed out of the panel prepared by the
Government upon completion of six years of their
service in terms of Works Department Resolution, in
the present case also there cannot be any hindrance
for regularization of the Petitioner upon completion of
his six years contractual service. Rather, it was the
mandate of the resolution of the Government
practiced by the Opposite Parties (IDCO) since long.
12. Apart from the above, while fixing the date of
regularization prospectively with effect from the date
of order i.e. 26th June 2020, no valid reason is seen
in favour of the Opposite Parties-IDCO to deny
regularization of the Petitioner with effect from such
a prior date of coming into force of 2019 Regulations.
It was the consistent approach of Opposite Parties-
IDCO to regularize the service of the Petitioner upon
his completion of contractual service for six years,
which is clearly evident from different decisions of
Board meetings of IDCO."
6.5. Glance at the IDCO Service Regulations, 2019 would
show that under Rule 5 the Board is vested with the
power to determine the number of posts of various
categories [as classified in Rule 4 thereof, such as
Group-A, B, C and D] and create as many posts in each
category as needed in respect of all groups of posts "with
approval of Government". Rule 18 ibid. dealing with
"Zone of Consideration" lays down that for filling up of
promotional posts, the Odisha Civil Services (Zone of
Consideration for Promotion) Rules, 1988 and relevant
provisions of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 16 of 28
Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) Act, 1975 and Rules made thereunder would be
followed.
6.6. This Court also takes cognizance of Rules 38, 39 and 41
of the IDCO Service Regulations, 2019, which read as
follows:
"38. Amendment.--
The Board may amend any of the provisions of these
Rules for reasons to be recorded in writing. The
Corporation may follow rules and regulations of
Government of Odisha in absence of / to supplement
relevant provisions of the regulations.
39. Relaxation.--
Where the Board is of opinion that it is necessary or
expedient to do so, it may by order and for reasons
to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions
of these rules in respect of any class or category of
persons in public interest.
41. Directives of the Government.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the
regulations, the Government may from time to time
issue such directives as they may consider
necessary in regard to the recruitment and
promotion of staff and those directive shall be
binding on the Corporation for immediate
implementation."
6.7. Conjoint reading of afore-mentioned provisions, it may
not be incorrect to say that the Resolutions of the
General Administration Department with respect to
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 17 of 28
regularization of employees in service are applicable to
the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development
Corporation (A Government of Odisha Undertaking).
6.8. The eligibility criteria has been specified in General
Administration Department Notification No.26108/Gen.,
dated 17.09.2013 read with No.1066/Gen, dated
16.01.2014 sheds light in the present context to obviate
the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel
Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohanty representing IDCO.
6.9. For ready reference the relevant Resolutions are
reproduced hereunder:
"GAD-SC-RULES-0009-2013--26108/Gen Government of
Odisha General Administration Department
***
RESOLUTION
Bhubaneswar dated the 17th September, 2013.
SUB: Regular appointment of existing contractual
Group C and Group D employees who are not
holding any post in contravention of any statutory
Recruitment Rules made under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India or any executive
instruction in absence of such rules.
The policy regarding regular appointment of
following categories of contractual Group „C' and
Group „D' employees appointed under the State
Government was under active consideration of
Government for some time past. Contractual
appointments/engagements made against
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 18 of 28
contractual posts created with the concurrence of
Finance Department on abolition of the
corresponding regular posts or contractual
appointments/engagements made against
contractual posts created with the concurrence of
Finance Department without abolition of any
corresponding regular post in case of new offices or
for strengthening of the existing offices/services,
following the recruitment procedure prescribed for
the corresponding regular posts and the principle of
reservation of Posts and services for different
categories of persons decided by the state
Government from time to time.
Government after careful consideration and in
supersession of the Resolutions/Orders/Instructions
issued by different Departments of Government to
that effect; except as respects things done or omitted
to be done before such supersession, have been
pleased to decide as follows:
1. Regular Appointment.--
(1) A gradation list of such contractual employees shall
be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis
of their date of appointment. In case, the dates of
appointment of two or more employees are the same
their inter-se position may be decided on the basis of
their date of birth, taking the elder as senior.
(2) Regular appointment of the above categories of
contractual employees shall be made on the
date of completion of six years of service or
from the date of publication of this Resolution,
whichever is later, in the order in which their
names appear in the gradation list prepared
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 19 of 28
under para 1. The period of six years shall be
counted from the date of contractual
appointment prior to publication of this
Resolution.
(3) Consequent upon regular appointment under the
contractual post, if any, shall get re-converted to
regular sanctioned post.
(4) In case the person concerned has crossed the upper
age limit for entry into Government service on the
date of contractual appointment for the
corresponding regular post, the appointing authority
shall allow relaxation of upper age limit.
2. Conditions of Service on Regular Appointment.--
(1) Regular Appointments: On the date of satisfactory
completion of six years of contractual service or from
the date of publication of this Resolution, whichever
is later, they shall be deemed to have been regularly
appointed. A formal order of regular appointment
shall be issued by the appointing authority.
(2) Pay and other benefits: On regular appointment they
shall be entitled to draw the time scale of pay plus
Grade Pay with DA and other allowances as
admissible in the corresponding pay band.
(3) Other conditions of service:
(a) The other conditions of service shall be such as
has been provided in the relevant recruitment
rules.
(b) The conditions of service in regard to matters
not covered by this Resolution shall be the
W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025 Page 20 of 28
same as are or as may from time to time be
prescribed by the State Government.
3. Interpretation.--
If any question arises relating to the interpretation of
this Resolution, it shall be referred to the State
Government whose decision thereon shall be final.
4. This has been concurred in by Finance Department
and Law Department vide their UOR No.2909-ACSF,
Dated 09.07.2013 and UOR No.1687/L., Dated
19.07.2013 respectively.
ORDER:
Ordered that the Resolution be published in the
extraordinary issue of the Odisha Gazette.
Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be
forwarded to all Departments of Government /
all Heads of Departments/all Collectors /
Registrar, Odisha High Court / Registrar,
Odisha Administrative Tribunal Special
Secretary, Odisha Public Service Commission /
Secretary, Odisha Staff Selection Commission/
Secretary, Odisha Sub-ordinate Staff Selection
Commission, Bhubaneswar.
By Order of the Governor
NITEN CHANDRA
Special Secretary to Government"
*** *** ***
[No. 1066-GAD-SC-RULES-0009/2013/Gen.]
General Administration Department
RESOLUTION
The 16th January, 2014
Sub: Regular Appointment of existing Contractual
Group C and Group-D employees who are not
holding any post in contravention of any statutory
Recruitment Rules made under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India or any executive
instruction in absence of such rules.
1. As per General Administration Department
Resolution No. 26108/Gen., Dated the 17th
September, 2013, the following are the mandatory
eligibility conditionalities for regularlzation of
contractual appointees/engagements.
(i) Contractual appointments/engagements must
have been made against contractual posts
created with the concurrence of Finance
Department on abolition of the corresponding
regular posts or contractual posts created with
the concurrence of Finance Department without
abolition of any corresponding regular post in
case of new offices or for strengthening of the
existing offices/services,
(ii) Such Contractual appointments/ engagements
must have been made following the recruitment
procedure prescribed for the corresponding
regular posts, and
(iii) Principle of reservation of Posts must have
been followed in case of such Contractual
appointments/engagements.
In other words, no contractual appointee shall be
eligible for regular appointment as per the aforesaid
Resolution unless the mandatory eligibility
conditionalities described above are fulfilled.
2. A part from the contractual employees fulfilling the
conditionalities elucidated in Para. 1 above, there
are other categories of contractual employees
engaged with or without creation of posts with the
concurrence of Finance Department, without
following the relevant recruitment and reservation
Rules. There are also contractual employees
engaged on out sourcing basis through service
providing agencies. These contractual employees are
not eligible for regularization as per the aforesaid
Resolution.
3. In order to prevent misuse of the aforesaid
Resolution, it is felt necessary to put appropriate
mechanism in place to ensure that the necessary
conditionalities as mentioned in Para. 1 are met.
4. Government, therefore, after careful consideration
have been pleased to decide in the following
manner.
(a) Proposal for regularization of contractual
appointees/engagements as per the aforesaid
Resolution shall be considered and approved
by a High Power Committee to be constituted
under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the
relevant Department in which the concerned
Head of Department and FA/AFA of the
Department shall be Members.
(b) In case the matter pertains to Administrative
Department, then the High Power Committee
shall be constituted under the Chairmanship of
the Secretary of the Department with Special
Secretary/Additional Secretary in charge of the
office establishment and FA/AFA of the
Department as Members.
(c) While considering the cases of regularization,
High Power Committee shall at the outset
ensure that the concerned appointments fulfil
the mandatory eligibility conditionalities as
elucidated in Para.1 above and thereafter
consider the case on the basis of the
stipulations contained under the heading
„Regular Appointments' of the General
Administration Department Resolution
No.26108/Gen, Dated the 17th September,
2013.
5. This Resolution has been issued with the advice of
Finance Department communicated to General
Administration Department vide their DOR No.5660-
ACSF, dated the 19th December, 2013.
Order: Ordered that the Resolution be published In the
Extraordinary Issue of the Odisha Gazette.
Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be
forwarded to all departments of
Government/all Heads of Departments/ all
Collectors/Registrar, Odisha High Court/
Registrar, Odisha Administrative Tribunal/
Special Secretary, Odisha Public Service
Commission/Secretary. Odisha Selection Staff
Commission/Secretary, Odisha Sub-ordinate
Staff Selection Commission. Bhubaneswar.
By Order of the Governor
NITEN CHANDRA
Special Secretary to Government"
6.10. It is crystal clear that PKP had been working since 2007
continuously and without any interruption on
contractual basis, till his regularization in service in
2020 against vacant post with a consolidated amount.
This is itself opposed to "public policy". "Public policy"
concerns the "public good" and "public interest".
6.11. In the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Limited Vrs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, reported in (1986) 3
SCC 156, it has been illuminatingly observed as follows:
"90. Should then our courts not advance with the times?
Should they still continue to cling to outmoded
concepts and outworn ideologies? Should we not
adjust our thinking caps to match the fashion of the
day? Should all jurisprudential development pass us
by, leaving us floundering in the sloughs of
nineteenth-century theories? Should the strong be
permitted to push the weak to the wall? Should they
be allowed to ride roughshod over the weak? Should
the courts sit back and watch supinely while the
strong trample under foot the rights of the weak? We
have a Constitution for our country. Our judges are
bound by their oath to „uphold the Constitution and
the laws‟. The Constitution was enacted to secure to
all the citizens of this country social and economic
justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to
all persons equality before the law and the equal
protection of the laws. The principle deducible from
the above discussions on this part of the case is in
consonance with right and reason, intended to
secure social and economic justice and conforms to
the mandate of the great equality clause in Article
14. This principle is that the courts will not enforce
and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an
unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and
unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into
between parties who are not equal in bargaining
power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all
bargains of this type. No court can visualize the
different situations which can arise in the affairs of
men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations.
For instance, the above principle will apply where
the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the
great disparity in the economic strength of the
contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality
is the result of circumstances, whether of the
creation of the parties or not. It will apply to
situations in which the weaker party is in a position
in which he can obtain goods or services or means of
livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the
stronger party or go without them. It will also apply
where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful
choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign
on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form
or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract,
however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a
clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This
principle, however, will not apply where the
bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal
or almost equal. This principle may not apply where
both parties are businessmen and the contract is a
commercial transaction. In today‟s complex world of
giant corporations with their vast infra-structural
organizations and with the State through its
instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost
every branch of industry and commerce, there can
be myriad situations which result in unfair and
unreasonable bargains between parties possessing
wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining
power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor
fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on
its own facts and circumstances."
6.12. It is pertinent to notice from paragraph-12 of the
impugned judgment that there was consistent approach
of IDCO to regularize the service of similarly situated
persons on completion of contractual service of six
years, which fact emanates from different decisions of
Board meetings of IDCO. Had the case of PKP been
considered at right point of time along with the similarly
situated employees, he would have been entitled for
such financial benefits also from the date of completion
of six years from initial appointment. In such view of the
matter, since PKP has actually worked in the post of
Junior Engineer (Civil), he is entitled for financial
benefits attached to such post since the day he
completed six years of service from the date of initial
appointment on 9th October, 2007.
6.13. It is to be clarified that since PKP has not actually
worked in the promotional post, he is not entitled to
claim the financial benefits in the promotional post.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis of the
materials available on record, this Court does not find
merit in Writ Appeal No.569 of 2025 (Odisha Industrial
Infrastructure Development Corporation Vrs. State of
Odisha & others). However, this Court interferes with the
impugned judgment dated 17th December, 2024 so far as
it relates to Writ Appeal No.643 of 2025 (Prasant Kumar
Panigrahy Vrs. Industrial Infrastructure Development
Corporation, Odisha and others) to the extent that PKP is
Signature Not entitled to financial benefits for the period with effect
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
from the date on which his regularization is directed to
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-Charge) be antedated by the learned Single Judge in the post,
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jul-2025 21:08:20 where he has actually worked. Save and except such
clarification, this Court does not interfere with the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
8. It is expected that the Authorities shall take steps to
work out the direction contained in the judgment dated
17th December, 2024 of the learned Single Judge with
the aforesaid clarification so far as "financial benefits" is
concerned.
9. With the above observation and direction, Writ Appeal
No.569 of 2025 is dismissed; and Writ Appeal No.643 of
2025 stands disposed of. Interlocutory applications, if
any, pending shall be disposed of accordingly. However,
in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 29th July, 2025//MRS/Laxmikant
