Orissa High Court
Arabinda Acharya vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10276 of 2020,
W.P.(C) No.10821 of 2020
W.P.(C) No. 11001 of 2020,
W.P.(C) No. 11004 of 2020,
W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2020, &
W.P.(C) No.19333 of 2022
Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
---------------
W.P.(C) No.10276 of 2020
Arabinda Acharya .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.10821 of 2020
Raj Narayan Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 11001 of 2020
Amit Kumar Mund .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11004 of 2020
Meera Kumari & Anr. .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2020
Madhusmita Pradhan .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Page 1 of 26
W.P.(C) No. 19333 of 2022
Raj Narayan Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K Panda, Mr. A.K Biswal,
Mr. A.K Mohapatra, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
M/s. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, & T.K.
Kamila, Advocates with
Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Advocate
(For OLIC]
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
7 November, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
All these writ applications involve common facts
and law and, having been heard together, are disposed of by
this common judgment.
2. For brevity, the facts of W.P.(C) No. 10276 of 2020
are being referred to in this judgment.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ application
seeking the following relief:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to quash the
order dated 25.11.2019 vide Annexure-6 and
consequential agenda for outsourced
employment as at Annexure-8 dated 06.01.2020.
And further direct the opposite parties that the
case of the petitioner shall be considered for
regularization, taking into consideration the
memorandum submitted by the Managing
Director before the Board of Directors.
And further to pay revised scale of pay and
grade pay as have been extended to regular
employees of the Corporation.
And pass any other order(s) or issue
direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in
the bona fide interest of justice.
And for which act of kindness, the
petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray."
FACTS
4. An advertisement was issued on 09.11.2011 by
opposite party No.2 - Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd.
(OLIC) inviting applications from intending candidates to fill
up different posts under Biju Krushak Vikas Yojana Deep
Bore Well Secha Karyakrama (BKVY-DBSK) on a contractual
basis through a walk-in interview. Three posts of Computer
Assistant were notified, carrying consolidated remuneration
of Rs. 7500/-. The petitioner appeared in the interview held
on 20.11.2011, whereafter a list containing 32 candidates
was prepared. Consequently, the petitioner was offered
appointment as per letter dated 14.12.2011.
4.1 It was mentioned in the letter of engagement that
the engagement was purely for the purpose of the Project
Management Unit (PMU) for Deep Bore Well Secha
Karyakrama and had no relationship with the regular
establishment of OLIC. Further, the offer was said to be valid
for a period of one year from the date of joining, based on the
terms of the contract. The engagement of the petitioner was
extended for a period of one year from time to time. On
26.11.2018, the petitioner, having completed six years of
service in the said post, submitted a representation before
opposite party No.2 with a prayer for regularization of
services. Since no action was taken, he approached this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 4414 of 2019. By order dated
07.11.2019, this Court directed the opposite party
authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner within a
period of two months. On 25.11.2019, the Joint Secretary to
the Government in the Department of Water Resources wrote
to opposite party No.2 that the manpower for the State
Project Unit (SPU) and Divisional Project Unit (DPU) should
be engaged on redeployment and outsourcing basis.
Therefore, contractual engagement should be discouraged
and replaced by outsourced manpower before submission of
subsequent renewal. By order dated 17.02.2020, opposite
party No.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the
ground that the same had no merit, as the appointment of
the petitioner was purely on a contractual basis, having no
relationship with the regular establishment of OLIC.
4.2 According to the petitioner, though there are
regular vacancies available, the action of the authorities in
not regularizing his services is illegal and unacceptable. By
order dated 29.02.2020, opposite party No.2 decided not to
extend the engagement of the petitioner beyond 31.03.2020.
This Court, by order dated 05.05.2020, while hearing the
present writ application, directed the authorities to maintain
status quo in respect of the service of the petitioner.
4.3 Standing on a similar footing as the petitioner,
several other writ applications have also been filed by
persons engaged under the same project and under identical
terms and conditions of service. A list of such petitioners,
indicating their respective case numbers and the posts in
which they are working, is presented in tabular form below:
Case number Petitioner name Working as
WPC No. 10276/ 2020 Arabinda Acharya Computer Asst.
WPC No. 10821/2020 Raj Narayan Behera Asst. Manager
WPC No. 11001/2020 Amit Kumar Mund Manager (Procurement)
WPC No. 11004/2020 Meera Kumari Jr. Quality Control Engineer
WPC No. 11004/2020 Jagabandhu Moharana Jr. Quality `Control Engineer
WPC No. 11007/2020 Madhusmita Pradhan Data Entry Operator
STAND OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT
5. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit
refuting the averments of the writ application as follows:
5.1 BKVY-DBSK started its operation during the year
2010-11 under OLIC for installation of Deep Bore Wells in a
massive way in hard rock/hilly tracts of 17 districts in the
first phase. Later, it was extended to 26 districts during the
year 2011-12. Since it was not possible to operationalize the
said scheme with the existing staff of OLIC, a proposal was
submitted to the Finance Department for approval of PMU so
that additional manpower could be hired on redeployment
and outsourcing basis. The Finance Department approved
the proposal and communicated to OLIC vide letter dated
27.10.2011 for setting up a State Project Unit (SPU) and 10
Divisional Project Units (DPUs) for effective monitoring of
works under BKVY-DBSK by sanctioning 26 posts for SPU
and 100 posts for 10 DPUs. Such sanction was with the
stipulation that engagement for the said posts shall be on
redeployment from OLIC/outsourcing basis. The person
concerned who desired to join would submit an undertaking
in terms of Finance Department Circular No. 55764/F dated
31.12.2004, and engagement would be for the project period
only, with no claim whatsoever beyond that period.
5.2 After extending the scheme to 26 districts, another
proposal was submitted to the Finance Department for
constitution of five more DPUs and creation of posts. The
Finance Department, in its letter dated 14.02.2012, agreed
with the proposal and created 50 posts, out of which 40
posts were to be filled up on redeployment basis and the rest
on outsourcing basis by OLIC.
5.3 As per concurrence of the Finance Department,
OLIC was instructed to engage personnel on redeployment
from OLIC/outsourcing basis and not on a contractual basis.
The Government had also communicated the observations of
the Finance Department to opposite party No.2 regarding the
proposal for extension of SPU and DPU for the period from
01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 in the following manner:
"Manpower for SPU and DPU should be made on
redeployment and outsourcing basis. Therefore,
contractual engagement should be discouraged
and replaced by outsourcing manpower before
submission of subsequent renewal."
As per the terms and conditions laid down in Clause 12(1) of
the agreement, the contractual engagement of the petitioner
ceased w.e.f. 31.03.2020. However, in view of the interim
order passed by this Court in the present writ application,
the petitioner has been allowed to work in OLIC pending
further orders.
5.4 The Finance Department had agreed for
constitution of the SPU and DPU on the condition that the
posts shall be filled up by redeployment or on outsourcing
basis and that the candidates who desired to join would
submit an undertaking in terms of the Finance Department
Circular dated 31.12.2004, acknowledging that the
engagement was for the project period only and that there
would be no claim whatsoever beyond the project period.
Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an undertaking that in
future he would not claim regular scale of pay and other
allowances. As such, the claim of the petitioner for
regularisation after completion of six years is devoid of merit.
STAND OF OLIC
6. OLIC has filed a counter more or less on similar
lines as the State. It is stated that the contractual
engagement of the petitioner was purely for the PMU of the
scheme and had no relationship with the regular
establishment of OLIC. The engagement of the petitioner was
on contract basis with a monthly consolidated remuneration
of Rs. 7500/-, and the offer was for a period of one year from
the date of joining. Once the petitioner accepted the
engagement letter without protest and submitted an
undertaking that in future he would not claim regular scale
of pay and other allowances for continuing in the said post,
he is estopped from claiming regularisation. As such, his
claim for regularisation is misconceived.
6.1 The engagement of the petitioner was initially for a
period of one year and was extended for similar periods with
the concurrence of the Finance Department. In the
engagement orders issued to the petitioner, it was clearly
stipulated that the engagement was for the scheme and had
no relationship with the regular establishment of OLIC.
Subsequently, by letter dated 25.11.2019, the Government
directed that manpower for SPU and DPU should be made on
redeployment and outsourcing basis, and contractual
engagement should be discouraged and replaced by
outsourced manpower before submission of subsequent
renewal. As per Clause 12.1 of the agreement signed by the
petitioner, his contractual engagement ceased w.e.f.
29.02.2020, but he is continuing in view of the interim order
passed by this Court. The claim for regularisation made by
the petitioner is contrary to law, and as per the judgment of
the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi1, he
has no right to continue in the post after the contract period
is over. As regards the Odisha Group 'C' and Group 'D'
Contractual Employees (Appointment) Rules, 2013, the same
is not applicable as the petitioner was appointed much prior
to their coming into force. Moreover, the petitioner was
engaged under a project-based scheme.
(2006) 4 SCC 1
SUBMISSIONS
7. Heard Mr. D.K. Panda, Mr. A.K Biswal and Mr. A.K
Mohapatra learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S.N.
Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State; and Mr. A.K Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for
OLIC (opposite party No.2).
8. Mr. Panda would argue that there is no dispute
that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis and
that their services were renewed from time to time. This
shows that work is available in the establishment. Only
because the petitioners laid claim for regularization of their
services, the authorities, adopting a vindictive attitude,
decided to terminate their services by issuing the impugned
order under Annexure-15. Mr. Panda further submits that
the authorities have proposed to engage persons on
outsourcing basis against the posts in which the petitioners
are engaged, which is contrary to law, as one set of
temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set.
9. Mr. Panda further submits that even though there
is no regular post in the establishment bearing the same
designation as assigned to them, there exist equivalent posts
with identical or substantially similar eligibility conditions.
He therefore, contends that the services of the petitioners
ought to be regularised against such equivalent sanctioned
posts. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19333 of 2020 has, in
addition, challenged the advertisement issued for recruitment
to the post of Computer Programmer, asserting that the
eligibility criteria prescribed therein are identical to those
applicable to the post in which he is presently working.
Similar contentions have been advanced by the petitioners in
the connected writ petitions.
10. Mr. Panda has cited the following judgments in
support of his contentions:
"1.Chander Mohan Negi v. State of H.P.2
2.Jaggo v. Union of India3
3.Shripal v. Nagar Nigam4
4. Balabhadra Majhi v. State of Odisha and Ors."5
11. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government
Advocate, on the other hand, would argue that the petitioner
was engaged under a scheme for a particular period. It is
immaterial that his engagement was renewed from time to
time. Mere renewal does not take away the fact that his
(2020) 5 SCC 732
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
MANU/OR/0949/2022
engagement was temporary and on contractual basis. Having
signed an undertaking that he shall not claim regularization
in future, he is estopped from laying such a claim.
12. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for OLIC,
makes more or less similar arguments as the State counsel
and additionally submits that OLIC, being a public sector
undertaking, has to abide by the directions of the State
Government, which decided to replace contractual employees
with outsourced employees. He further submits that the
petitioner was aware of the nature of his engagement from
the very beginning and had also signed an undertaking not to
claim regularization in future. As such, he is estopped from
doing so at this stage.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13. The facts as laid are not disputed. The petitioner
applied for engagement pursuant to the advertisement dated
09.11.2011 and, having undergone a selection process, was
engaged. The letter dated 14.12.2011 issued to the selected
candidates reads as follows:
"Consequent upon your provisional selection for the
aforesaid position the Managing Director, Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corporation Limited is pleased to offer you
to join in Project Management Unit (DPU) of BKVY
Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama on contract basis
with monthly/consolidated remuneration of Rs.
7500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred) only
per month. This offer is for a period of one year from
the date of joining based on the terms of contract
subject to verification of all original
documents/testimonials stated in your original
application. The engagement is purely for the purpose
of PMU for Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama and
has no relationship with regular establishment of
OLIC."
14. It is also not disputed that the petitioner submitted
undertaking that he would not claim regular scale of pay in
future. His engagement was extended/renewed from time to
time on a yearly basis. From the stand taken by the State as
well as OLIC, it is evident that the basic objection raised by
them is that the engagement was for a project under the
scheme called BKVY-DBSK. The order dated 27.10.2011 of
the Government in the Department of Water Resources
(Annexure-A/2 to the counter filed by OLIC) contains the
modalities for filling up the posts and states:
"The above engagement is only for the project period
and person concerned who desires to join will submit
an undertaking in terms of Finance Deptt. Circular
No.55764-F dt:31.12.2004 (copy enclosed). There will
be no claim whatsoever beyond the project period."
15. A model form of undertaking is also enclosed,
stating inter alia:
"Further, I do hereby give an undertaking that in
future I shall not claim regular scale of pay and other
allowances for continuing in the said post merely on
the ground that I have been given a contract
appointment and my contractual appointment has
been extended from time to time."
16. Two points therefore emerge clearly: (i) the
engagement is said to be for the project period only; and (ii)
the petitioner had given an undertaking not to claim
regularization in future. As to the first point, the Court must
examine whether the nature of the work performed by the
petitioner though described as project-specific can
legitimately be treated as perennial i.e, of a recurring and
continuing character intrinsic to the functioning of OLIC.
17. It is common ground that the petitioner was
engaged as a Computer Assistant. A Computer Assistant may
not be described, in a narrow sense, as the core or primary
technical function of the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
(which centrally concerns hydrological engineering, pump
and lift installations and allied field works). Yet to approach
the matter only through the prism of "core" versus "non-core"
would be to ignore the realities of modern institutional
functioning. The performance of clerical, data-processing,
record-keeping and IT-related tasks is pervasive and
continues to be necessary for the effective discharge of the
organization's mandated activities. In the present case the
duties performed by the petitioner were continuous, ongoing
and integral to the day-to-day administration and monitoring
of the scheme. Thus, even if the post of Computer Assistant
is not a technical core post in the narrowest sense, it is
nevertheless a position the duties of which are recurrent,
necessary and enduring in the functioning of OLIC and its
project units.
18. Having regard to the continuous nature of the
work performed, this Court is satisfied that the institution of
the label "project" or the categorisation of the engagement as
contractual cannot, by itself, justify denial of regular
employment or be used as a device to avoid statutory or
organizational responsibility. The mere fact that a function is
common to many institutions does not make it temporary in
character if, in reality, the function is continuously required
by that institution. The settled law is that one set of
temporary employees should not be replaced by another set
of temporary employees where the posts and functions are
ongoing and necessary; a State instrumentality cannot
wriggle out of its obligations by repeatedly relabeling
enduring functions as "temporary" or by shifting from one
non-regular mode of engagement to another. Reference may
be made to the principle articulated by the Supreme Court in
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors6., that ad
hoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by other
ad hoc or temporary employees but must be replaced by
regularly selected employees to avoid arbitrary action by the
appointing authority.
19. The respondents have relied on Uma Devi (Supra)
to contend that renewal of a temporary engagement does not
confer a right to regularization. The legal position in Uma
Devi (Supra) is well established: it was aimed at preventing
backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutionally mandated processes. However, the
subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, most notably
in Jaggo (Supra) and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India 7has
clarified that Uma Devi (Supra) cannot be applied
mechanically where (i) there is no illegality in the original
engagement, (ii) the engagement was against sanctioned
(1992) 4 SCC 118
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230
posts, and (iii) the employees have rendered prolonged,
continuous and necessary service in performance of
functions that are integral to the institution. In such
circumstances procedural infirmities or the temporary label
cannot be permitted to perpetuate an injustice; the Court
must adopt a humane and pragmatic approach to
regularization where equity and public interest require it.
20. The decision in Jaggo (Supra) underscores that
the nature of the work performed and the factual matrix are
decisive: prolonged, continuous and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can,
over time, call for fair regularization. The Supreme Court also
drew attention to foreign jurisprudence (for instance
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation8) to stress that the
substance of the employer-employee relationship, rather than
the nomenclature affixed to it, must determine entitlement to
benefits and security. That approach is particularly salient
where the State, which is expected to be a model employer,
engages persons for work that is perennial in nature but
seeks to avoid obligations by classifying them as temporary.
97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir.1996)
The said observations of Supreme Court are reproduced
below-
"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."
21. In the present case, the initial engagements were
made against sanctioned posts created by the Finance
Department and the selection of the petitioner was through a
walk-in interview and a documented process. There is no
material on record to suggest that the original engagements
were illegal or tainted by malafides. The petitioner has
rendered continuous service since 2011 in a capacity that is
essential for the day-to-day functioning of the PMU/DPU. The
respondents' reliance on the undertaking executed by the
petitioner does not, in the circumstances of this case, avail
them. It is well recognised that undertakings or contractual
clauses executed by persons who have little or no bargaining
power cannot be allowed to operate as instruments of
injustice. The ratio in Central Inland Water Transport
Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly 9is instructive on the Court's
unwillingness to enforce unfair and unconscionable bargains
where there exists marked inequality of bargaining power and
where the disadvantaged party had no real choice.
22. To hold that mere execution of a standard form
undertaking, prior to or at the time of engagement, would
conclusively estopp long serving employees from claiming
regularization would be to permit the State to defeat the
(1986) 3 SCC 156
constitutional guarantee of the right to livelihood under
Article 21 by administrative artifice. Between a fundamental
right under the Constitution and a contractual clause
extracted from an unequal bargaining position, constitutional
primacy must prevail.
23. It is also significant that the duties performed by
the petitioner have continued to exist; the work has neither
ceased nor diminished. Indeed, the same work is reflected in
subsequent advertisements for filling the posts on a regular
basis. That the regular cadre vacancies remained unfilled
while the petitioners continued to perform those functions on
a contractual basis indicates an institutional pattern that
cannot be permitted to operate to the detriment of those who
have served the institution diligently.
24. Having considered the pleadings, the materials on
record and the relevant precedents, this Court is of the view
that the respondents cannot legitimately rely on the project
label or on routine undertakings to deny the petitioners the
relief of regularization where (i) sanctioned posts exist, (ii) the
engagement was by due process against sanctioned
requirements, and (iii) the work performed is continuous,
necessary and integral to the functioning of the institution.
While the post of Computer Assistant may not be the narrow
technical core of OLIC's field operations, it is an essential and
recurring administrative/operational function without which
the functioning of the project units would be impaired. The
legal and equitable considerations therefore tilt in favour of
the petitioners.
25. In view of the foregoing, the arguments advanced
on behalf of the State and OLIC that the petitioners are
estopped by virtue of their undertakings or are deprived of
any right to regularization by reason only of the project
character of their engagement are not tenable. The
petitioners' claim for regularization is founded on continuous
and necessary service and on sanctioned institutional need,
and is supported by the legal principles articulated by the
Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above.
26. As regards the relief to be granted, it has been
argued by Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the OLIC that
the posts against which the petitioners are presently engaged
on contractual basis are not available in the regular
establishment. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners
would argue that the very fact that the petitioners have been
engaged continuously for so long in the core work of OLIC
proves that there is work for them.
27. This Court finds that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.
10276 of 2020 is working as Computer Assistant. Nothing
has been placed before this Court to show that any such post
is available in the regular establishment. Learned counsel for
the petitioner however, submits that corresponding post with
the same qualification, namely, Junior Clerk/Jr. Assistant is
available against which the petitioner can be adjusted.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10821 of 2020 is
engaged as Asst. Manager. According to learned counsel for
the petitioner, the OLIC has requested for creation of the post
of Asst. Manager (MIS) but the same has not yet been
created. He further submits that in the fresh advertisement
issued, the post of Asst. Manager (MIS) corresponds to the
post of Computer Programmer.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11001 of 2020 is
engaged as Manager (Procurement). There is no such post
available in the regular establishment.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.11004 of 2020 are
engaged as Junior Quality Control Engineers. Though there
is no such corresponding post in the regular cadre, it is
submitted that the said post is equivalent to Junior Engineer
(Civil), against which the petitioners can be appointed.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11007 of 2020 is
engaged as Data Entry Operator. As per the affidavit filed by
the OLIC, no such post is available in the regular
establishment.
28. This Court has already held that the petitioners
have been engaged for a long time on contractual basis in
different works of OLIC. Considering the sheer length of their
engagement, it can be safely held that the works in question
are intrinsic to the basic work of OLIC. In other words, it is
not a temporary or one-off engagement, whatever may be the
nomenclature used by the management. This Court is
therefore, inclined to accept the contentions advanced that
the engagement of the petitioners cannot continue
indefinitely on such ad hoc basis. In other words, the
petitioners' engagement has to be secured keeping in line
with their fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under
Article 21 of Constitution of India.
29. Having held thus, this Court would hasten to
observe that in the absence of specific posts in the regular
establishment, no mandamus can be issued to the
authorities to straightaway regularise these persons.
However, keeping in view the length of their engagement, the
nature of work performed and in the backdrop of settled
principles of law elaborately discussed in this judgment, this
Court is of the considered view that the authorities should
undertake an exercise to consider creation of suitable regular
posts against which these persons can be engaged depending
on their fulfilling the necessary eligibility conditions that may
be prescribed. It goes without saying that if such regular
posts are created and the petitioners are found to be eligible,
they may be considered for engagement against the same by
following the norms and by granting relaxation of age
wherever necessary.
CONCLUSION
30. The writ petitions are disposed of with direction to
the opposite party authorities to consider creation of suitable
regular posts appropriate to the work discharged by the
petitioners against which they can be engaged subject to the
other observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Till
such time, these petitioners shall not be disengaged.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 7th November, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
