[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dhuleswar Das vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite on 9 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24919 of 2024
Dhuleswar Das .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate
-Versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite
Parties
Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 09.04.2026
03.
By means of this application, the Petitioner calls in question
the legality and propriety of the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.589 of 2017.
2. The background facts leading to this case are that the
petitioner, who was engaged as a Technical Helper under the
Doordarshan establishment since 26.11.1994, has been
continuously discharging his duties for a considerable length of
time but his services were not regularised. Aggrieved by such
inaction, the petitioner approached the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 589 of 2017
seeking regularisation of his service. The learned Tribunal, vide
order dated 02.04.2024, disposed of the said original application
directing the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in
terms of the scheme dated 22.08.2019 instead of granting
substantive relief. Being dissatisfied with the said direction,
particularly when similarly situated persons had already been
granted the benefit of regularisation pursuant to earlier orders of
the Tribunal as well as this Court, the petitioner has approached
this Court by filing the present writ petition. On 19.11.2024, when
the matter was first taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely
covered by earlier decisions rendered in respect of similarly
situated persons. It was further submitted that such decisions had
attained finality up to the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
that the benefits flowing therefrom had already been extended to
those persons. Thereafter, on 20.11.2024, learned counsel for the
petitioner produced copies of the orders passed in similar matters,
including those of this Court, the review proceedings and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, along with instances of consequential
regularisation. The same were taken on record. Considering the
nature of the dispute and the materials placed, this Court issued
notice on the question of admission with an indication that the
matter may be finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
3. As seen from the record, the impugned order dated
02.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 589 of 2017 reveals that while the
claim of the petitioner for regularisation was under consideration,
the learned Tribunal, instead of adjudicating the issue on merits,
disposed of the Original Application by directing the competent
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the
scheme dated 22.08.2019 and to pass a reasoned order thereon.
Thus, no positive or conclusive relief was granted to the petitioner,
and the matter was relegated to the authorities for consideration.
4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the Petitioner drew
the attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.(C)
No.20539 of 2019, wherein the Petitioners, who were engaged as
Casual Helpers under the Doordarshan establishment, were
extended the benefit of regularisation. It is submitted that the said
Petitioners, as well as the present Petitioner, derive their claim
from the very same line of adjudication beginning with T.A. No.
34 of 2009 and batch of cases, wherein similarly situated
employees were directed to be regularised, and in pursuance
thereof, several such employees have already been conferred the
benefit of regularisation. The present Petitioner had also relied
upon the said decisions before the learned Tribunal, asserting
parity with those employees.
5. The factual matrix further reveals that the present Petitioner,
having been engaged as a Technical Helper since 26.11.1994, has
discharged duties of a regular nature under the administrative
control of the Opp. Parties, continuously, for decades. Such
engagement, though described as casual, was neither sporadic nor
short-term but against the regular requirements of the
establishment. On a perusal of the materials on record and the
nature of engagement, this Court finds that the case of the present
Petitioner falls within the category of "irregular" appointment and
not "illegal" appointment, particularly in view of his long and
uninterrupted service without intervention of any Court or
Tribunal.
6. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India &
Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, wherein it has been
reiterated that employees in irregular appointments, who have
rendered long years of continuous service, are entitled to
consideration for regularisation as a one-time measure, and that
the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs.
Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 ought not to be applied in a manner so
as to defeat legitimate claims of such employees.
7. In view of the ongoing discussion, the Opp. Parties are
directed to take all consequential steps and pass appropriate orders
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this
order, granting regularisation to the Petitioner from the date of his
initial engagement, along with all attendant service and financial
benefits, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, including
those relating to conferment of temporary status and consequential
regularisation.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash )
Judge
A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 10-Apr-2026 11:09:52
