Orissa High Court
Sarbeswar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 28 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 04-Apr-2025 18:13:17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9474 of 2020
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Sarbeswar Pradhan .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-14.02.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-28.03.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to regularize his
contractual service from 2003 to 2009, grant him seniority and
retrospective benefits, and ensure equal treatment as per Government
policy and precedent.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Collection Moharir under
Lanjigarh Tahasil, Kalahandi by the Revenue and Disaster Management
Department, Government of Odisha, through District Office Order No,
101, dated 11.10.1988, and joined on 18.01.1988. He was promoted to
the post of Revenue Inspector (R.I.) through District Office Order No.
652, dated 11.03.2003, with retrospective effect from 01.07.1997, and
posted at Risida under M. Rampur Tahasil.
(ii) Being a Diploma Engineer, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior
Engineer (JE) on a contractual basis through Notification dated
29.09.2003, issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources
Department, Government of Odisha. Upon selection for the JE position,
he was relieved from the post of Revenue Inspector through Memo No.
3555, dated 18.10.2003, and officially joined as a contractual Junior
Engineer on 17.12.2003 in Golamunda Block, with a consolidated salary
of ₹4,000 per month.
(iii) The petitioner was regularized as a Junior Engineer on 21.11.2009 and
joined in Narla Block in Pay Band-II (₹9,300) with a Grade Pay of ₹4,200.
He was later promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer through
Notification No. 30389, dated 22.12.2016, and was posted to CCE, Upper
Indravati Project, Muklinguda, where he joined on 16.05.2017. He is
currently serving as an Assistant Engineer in Jaipatna Block, Kalahandi
after his transfer on 07.09.2020.
(iv) The petitioner's primary grievance is that his contractual service period
from 2003 to 2009 has not been counted for seniority and retrospective
service benefits, despite being continuous and uninterrupted. He argues
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
that this violates service jurisprudence and settled legal principles, as
per the State Government's policy on regularization of Junior Engineers.
(v) The VR Committee, constituted to review such requests, convened on
27.08.2024, and after due deliberation, rejected her application on
17.09.2024, stating that her retirement could not be permitted due to an
acute shortage of doctors in government medical institutions across the
state.
(vi) Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking a
direction to count his contractual period for seniority and service
benefits.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner was appointed following due procedure, continued
without interruption, and was regularized after six years, making him
eligible for counting contractual service towards seniority and benefits.
The Supreme Court in Direct Recruitment Class-II Engineering
Association1 has already ruled that such officiating service should be
counted.
(ii) His service from 1987 as a Collection Moharir, promotion as a Revenue
Inspector in 2003, and appointment as a Junior Engineer in 2003 on a
contractual basis demonstrates an unbroken employment history. Since
(1990) 2 SCC 715.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
he was under the control of the Collector, Kalahandi, his contractual
service should be counted toward regular employment.
(iii) The State Government's rules for regularization of Junior Engineers
ensure that employees who complete six years of contractual service are
absorbed into regular service with benefits. The petitioner meets all
eligibility criteria, yet his contractual period is not being considered.
(iv) His colleagues who were regularized under similar conditions have
been granted full service benefits, but he has been deprived of the same
without justification. This constitutes discrimination and administrative
arbitrariness, violating Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).
(v) The authorities have not provided any justification for denying his
claim. He has been serving continuously since 1987, yet his service
before 2009 is not being recognized for seniority and financial benefits.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Panchayat Raj Department (Opposite Party No. 2), the Collector of
Kalahandi (Opposite Party No. 4), and the Block Development Officer
(Opposite Party No. 5) argue that they are not the appointing
authorities for the petitioner. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water
Resources Department (Opposite Party No. 3), Government of Odisha,
was responsible for appointing the petitioner as a Junior Engineer on
29.09.2003.
(ii) Since the Water Resources Department regularized him in 2009, any
claim regarding seniority and service benefits should be addressed to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the Water Resources Department (Opposite Party No. 3), not the
Panchayat Raj Department.
(iii) The Collector, Kalahandi, and the Block Development Officer (BDO)
assert that there is no cause of action against them, as they did not
appoint or regulate the petitioner's service conditions. The petitioner
was merely deputed to the Panchayat Raj Department after his
appointment by the Water Resources Department.
(iv) The petitioner's appointment as a contractual Junior Engineer was as
per the existing government norms, which mandated contractual
service for six years before regularization. His service was regularized
in 2009, in line with the State Government's policy, but the rules did not
allow for counting contractual service towards seniority. Since the
petitioner accepted the terms of his contractual appointment, he cannot
later claim seniority benefits for the contractual period.
(v) The petitioner was granted all service benefits upon regularization in
2009, including pay scale revisions, increments, and promotions. He
was promoted to Assistant Engineer in 2016, showing that his career
progression has not been adversely affected. The claim for retrospective
benefits for the contractual period is against existing government policy.
(vi) The petitioner has relied on Direct Recruitment Class-II Engineering
Association v. State of Maharashtra (Supra), which held that if an
appointment follows due process and continues uninterrupted until
regularization, the period should be counted for seniority. However, the
respondents argue that this precedent does not apply, as the Odisha
Government's policy for Junior Engineers clearly mandates six years of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
contractual service before regularization, without counting the
contractual period for seniority.
(vii) The petitioner was initially a regular government employee as a
Collection Moharir and Revenue Inspector before moving to a
contractual role as a Junior Engineer. His transition from a permanent
position to a contractual position was voluntary, and he accepted the
government's terms regarding regularization.
(viii) The petitioner has received all service benefits as per government
norms, and his claim for retrospective seniority lacks legal merit. Hence,
the petition is devoid of cause of action and should therefore be
dismissed with costs.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. The crux of the dispute lies in the fact that the petitioner seeks
recognition of his contractual service from 2003 to 2009 for seniority and
retrospective benefits, asserting that his continuous and uninterrupted
tenure entitles him to the same treatment as other regularized
employees. He argues that the denial of such benefits is arbitrary and
discriminatory. Conversely, the opposite parties maintain that
contractual service, by policy, does not count toward seniority, and
since the petitioner accepted these terms upon appointment, his claim
lacks legal merit.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
7. The issue before this Court hinges on whether a contractual employee,
upon regularization, can retrospectively claim seniority from the date of
initial engagement. Jurisprudence in service law dictates that seniority
cannot be granted retrospectively to a period when an individual was
not borne in regular service, unless expressly provided by the
governing rules or mandated by judicial direction. To do so would
unsettle the rights of those already in service, creating an inequitable
distortion in the cadre structure. Unless a legal or policy framework
explicitly allows for such retrospective benefit, it cannot be granted as a
matter of right.
8. This perspective has been consistently upheld in numerous judicial
precedents. Notably, in State of Bihar v. Arbind Jee2 , the Supreme
Court held as follows:
"The jurisprudence in the field of service law would advise
us that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date
when an employee is not even borne in service. It is also
necessary to bear in mind that retrospective seniority unless
directed by court or expressly provided by the applicable
Rules, should not be allowed, as in so doing, others who had
earlier entered service, will be impacted."
9. A grant of retrospective seniority was also brought into question in
Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State of UP and Ors3., where the Supreme
Court deliberated and held as follows:
"The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march
over the early arrivals in the regular queue. On principle the
appellant cannot therefore succeed. What is more in matters
AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 4648.
1986 AIR 1859.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
of seniority the Court does not exercise jurisdiction akin to
appellate jurisdiction against the determination by the
competent authority, so long as the competent authority has
acted bona fide and acted on principles of fairness and fair
play. In a matter where there is no rule or regulation
governing the situation or where there is one, but is not
violated, the Court will not overturn the determination
unless it would be unfair not to do so."
10. Applying the principles enunciated in the aforementioned judicial
precedents to the present case, it is evident that the petitioner cannot
claim retrospective seniority for the period during which he was
engaged in a contractual capacity. Seniority is a critical facet of service
jurisprudence, governed by statutory rules and policies formulated in
furtherance of administrative efficiency and cadre stability. In the
absence of a specific rule or directive mandating the inclusion of
contractual service for the purpose of seniority, the petitioner's claim
cannot be sustained. To hold otherwise would amount to unsettling the
settled seniority of other regularly appointed employees, thereby
disrupting the established service hierarchy and creating an anomaly in
the cadre structure.
11. In the present case, the Odisha Government's policy explicitly
prescribes a period of six years of contractual service before
regularization, without conferring any entitlement to count such service
for seniority purposes. The petitioner, at the time of his appointment as
a Junior Engineer, had full knowledge of the terms of his engagement
and accepted the same without demur. Having entered into service
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
under these conditions, he cannot now claim a benefit that was never
contemplated by the governing policy framework.
12. Now, even if we were to examine whether the petitioner could claim the
benefit of legitimate expectation, such a plea would not hold ground in
the present case. For a claim of legitimate expectation to succeed, the
petitioner must demonstrate a consistent governmental practice or a
clear representation that contractual service would be counted for
seniority upon regularization. However, no such assurance is evident
from the applicable rules, policies, or notifications governing his
appointment.
V. CONCLUSION:
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is abundantly clear that the
petitioner's claim for retrospective seniority is without legal foundation.
The policy governing his appointment does not provide for such a
benefit, and to grant the relief sought would amount to judicial
legislation, which is impermissible. The petitioner has been granted all
service benefits upon regularization, including pay scale revisions,
increments, and promotions, ensuring that his career progression has
not been adversely affected. His claim, if allowed, would not only be
contrary to settled legal principles but would also prejudice the
legitimate rights of others who were regularly appointed in accordance
with the applicable rules.
14. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The writ
petition stands dismissed.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
15. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 28th March, 2025/
