Orissa High Court
Niranjan Behera vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13249 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Niranjan Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. S.B. Jena, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.R. Mohanty
Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 09.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for
the Opp. Parties.
// 2 //
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order
dtd.25.03.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-24.
Claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization being a
contractual employee w.e.f.26.06.2007 was rejected on the ground
that Petitioner was so appointed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Haridaspur-Paradeep Rail Link-Opp. Party No. 4, without
following due procedure of law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
pursuant to the letter issued by Opp. Party No. 4 on 02.03.2006 under
Annexure-1 and consequential letter issued by the Commerce &
Transport Department, Govt. of Odisha on 27.05.2006 under
Annexure-2, Opp. Party No. 4 vide his letter dtd.17.06.2006 under
Annexure-3, recommended the claim of three (3) persons which
includes the present Petitioner for engagement as contractual Amin in
the office of Opp. Party No. 4. Such a recommendation was made
basing on the notice issued by the said authority and with receipt of
applications from various candidates including the Petitioner.
4.1. It is contended that recommendation made by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer-Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-3 was accepted
by the Govt. in the Commerce & Transport Department vide
// 3 //
Annexure-4 letter dtd.05.05.2007 and basing on the letter issued by
the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 2, vide office order dtd.26.06.2007 under
Annexure-5, Petitioner was appointed as a contractual Amin in the
establishment of Opp. Party No. 4.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on
such engagement on contractual basis vide order dtd.26.06.2007 under
Annexure-5, Petitioner was not only allowed to continue as such but
also his remuneration was enhanced from time to time as applicable to
such contractual Amin vide order issued on 19.03.2010 under
Annexure-6.
4.3. It is also contended that during continuance of the Petitioner
various recommendations were made by Opp. Party No. 4 seeking
regularization of the services of the Petitioner and it was indicated that
vacancy has occurred due to retirement of an incumbent Amin. But no
action was taken to regularize the services of the Petitioner basing on
such recommendation and the stipulation contained in the G.A.
Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 so issued under Annexure-10.
4.4. It is contended that on the face of such recommendation and the
eligibility of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization in terms
of G.A. Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013, when no action was
// 4 //
taken, Petitioner on compelling circumstances approached this Court
by filing W.P.(C) No. 6739 of 2021 with a prayer to direct Opp. Party
No. 1 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the
benefit of regularization.
4.5. It is contended that vide order dtd.24.02.2021 under Annexure-23
this Court while disposing the writ petition, directed Opp. Party No. 1
to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the
decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi,
(2006) 4 SCC-1 and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9
SCC 247 as well as G.A. Department Resolution issued on
17.09.2013. However, on the face of such direction issued by this
Court, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order
dtd.25.03.2022 under Annexure-24, only on the ground that Petitioner
has been so appointed by Opp. Party No. 4 without following due
procedure of law.
4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Petitioner was so appointed basing on the communications issued
under Annexure-1 to 3 and the approval made by the Govt. under
Annexure-4. It is also contended that basing on the notice issued by
Opp. Party No. 4 when three (3) persons, which includes the
// 5 //
Petitioner made their application for their engagement as contractual
Amin, the same was forwarded vide letter dtd.17.06.2006 under
Annexure-3. After acceptance of the Petitioner's claim by the Govt.
vide letter dtd.05.05.2007 under Annexure-4, Petitioner was appointed
on contractual basis vide office order dtd.26.06.2007 under Annexure-
5.
4.7. It is accordingly contended that since basing on the notice issued
by Opp. Party No. 4 and considering the applications made with due
approval of the Govt., Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis
vide office order dtd.26.06.2007 and he was allowed to continue with
enhancement of his remuneration as applicable to such contractual
employees from time to time, the ground on which Petitioner's claim
has been rejected vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye
of law.
4.8. It is also contended that in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp.
Party No. 4 it has been admitted that at present there are 8 nos. of
vacant posts of Amin available in the office of Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Kendrapara. It is also contended that in view of
the stipulation contained in Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 since it is not
disputed that Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide order
// 6 //
dtd.26.06.2007 under Annexure-5 and he is continuing as such on
contractual basis, his claim to get the benefit of regularization is
squarely covered by the Resolution issued by the G.A. Department on
17.09.2013 under Annexure-10. Making all these submissions, it is
contended that the ground on which Petitioner's claim has been
rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.9. A further submission was also made that in view of the recent
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of
India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal & Anr. vs.
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 as well as
Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal
No(s).8558 of 2018, Petitioner because of his long continuance on
contractual basis, is eligible to get the benefit of regularization with
quashing of the impugned order.
4.10. View expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo
as cited supra in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:-
"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
// 7 //
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
Declaration6 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 judgement of the United State in the
case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 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
// 8 //
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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
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
// 9 //
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."
4.11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal as cited (supra) in
Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:-
"14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a
shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting
for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment.
15. ....... Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual
daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the
legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an
extended period.
18.(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."
// 10 //
4.12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh as cited supra
in Paragraph-13,14,15 & 17,18,19 & 20 has held as follows:
"13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal
(Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to
perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement
practices where the work is inherently perennial. The
Commission's further contention that the appellants are not
"full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim
orders also does not advance their case. That interim
protection was granted precisely because of the long history
of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the
State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor
erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper
adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined
relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically
assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However,
that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged
the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a
fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was
placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances,
we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the
legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in
1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of
the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the
High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal
without engaging with the principal challenge or the
intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in
reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules"
and "vacancy" while ignoring the core question of
arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite
perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the
impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The
State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,in so far as
they concern the Commission's proposals for
sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address
perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable
and stand quashed.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the
State (here referring to both the Union and the State
governments) is not a mere market participant but a
// 11 //
constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring
public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year
after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term
extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes
confidence in public administration and offends the promise
of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a
place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides
fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful
lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism"
thrives where administration is opaque. The State
Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment
registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and
they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious
engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is
perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show
what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed
workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course
aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged
insecurity is not sentimentality. It is an institutional discipline
that should inform every decision affecting those who keep
public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the
appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and
the material indicating vacancies and comparator
regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All
appellants shall stand regularized with effect from
24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a
fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh
decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants.
For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment
(U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create
supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III
(Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard
or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On
regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than
the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants
shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale
as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service
shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
// 12 //
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall
be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and
admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-
level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts
actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date
of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be.
Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall
be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three
months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry
compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default
until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired
shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002
until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears
under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and
other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues
shall be paid within three months of this Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and
any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her
legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears
under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all
terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i),
within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the
Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file
an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four
months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters
have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
"reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further
prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured
for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that
Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions,
but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and
verifiable compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State
is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its
perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget
for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in
letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere
negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that
// 13 //
erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The
operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of
supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent
financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is
therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency
in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations
under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
5. Learned addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting
the impugned order, contended that since Petitioner was not engaged
on contractual basis by facing due recruitment process and he was so
appointed by Opp. Party No. 4 vide order dtd.26.06.2007 under
Annxure-5, Petitioner's very engagement on contractual basis is not
sustainable in the eye of law and he is not eligible and entitled to get
the benefit of regularization which has been rightly rejected.
6. Even though such a submission was made by the learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate, but this Court finds the following stand has been
taken by Opp. Party No. 4 in Para 5 of the counter affidavit:
"5. That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-1 of
the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, Sri Niranjan
Behera was engaged for the first time on 02.07.2007 as Amin
contractual basis O/o Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Haridaspur-Paradeep New B.G Rail Link project,
Kendrapara with extension from time to time with two days
break and on this process he has already completed fourteen
years and 11 months of his service and it is also submitted
that 8 Nos. of post of Amin are laying vacant under the
disposal of Spl. L.A.O., Kendrapara."
// 14 //
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that basing on the
communication issued under Annexure-1 & 2 and the names
submitted by Opp. Party No. 4 vide letter dtd.17.06.2006 under
Annexure-3, Opp. Party No. 2 while accepting the proposal, accepted
the name of the Petitioner for his engagement as an Amin on
contractual basis vide letter dtd.05.05.2007 under Annexure-4. After
such acceptance of the proposal so submitted by Opp. Party No. 2,
Petitioner was appointed vide order dtd.26.06.2007 under Annexure-5
on contractual basis as an Amin.
7.1. As found from the record, Petitioner was not only allowed to
continue on contractual basis but also his remuneration was enhanced
from time to time as was made applicable by the State for such
contractual appointees.
7.2. Taking into account the nature and manner of appointment made
in favour of the Petitioner vide order dtd.26.06.2007 under Annexure-
5, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner was duly appointed by
Opp. Party No. 4 and claim of the Petitioner is squarely covered by
the stipulation contained in Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 so issued by
the G.A. Department under Annexure-10. It is also the view of this
// 15 //
Court that Petitioner was duly appointed on contractual basis by Opp.
Party No. 4, basing on the notice issued by him and the applications
made by different candidates, which includes the Petitioner with due
approval of Opp. Party No. 2.
7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that
the ground on which Petitioner's claim has been rejected is not
sustainable in the eye of law. Taking into account the appointment of
the Petitioner on contractual basis vide order dtd.26.06.2007 under
Annexure-5 and the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal as well as
Dharam Singh as cited supra and the stipulation contained in
Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 so issued by the G.A. Department under
Annexure-10, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of regularization, having been duly
appointed by Opp. Party No. 4.
7.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order
dtd.25.03.2022 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1, directs the said
authority to pass an appropriate order by regularizing the services of
the Petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of
receipt of this order strictly in terms of the Resolution dt.17.09.2013.
// 16 //
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 9th of September, 2025/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
