State Of Odisha & Another vs Ashok Kumar Mohanty & on 21 April, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

,
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     W.A. No.48 of 2025
     State of Odisha & another          ....             Appellants

                                      Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
                        -versus-
     Ashok Kumar Mohanty &
     another                     ....     Respondents
                          Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate

               CORAM:
               JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
               JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

          Date of Hearing & Date of Judgment: 21.04.2026

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this Intra-Court appeal, the Appellants-State of Odisha and its functionaries call in question the judgment dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.19549 of 2019, whereby the writ petition was allowed, the rejection order dated 04.04.2018 was set aside, and a direction was issued for regularisation of the services of Respondent No.1 with consequential benefits.

2. The background facts are that Respondent No.1 was initially engaged as Town Bus Conductor in Balasore Municipality on DLR basis on 02.07.1993. Upon discontinuance of the town bus service, he was continued in employment and assigned duties as Tax Collector under the Municipality. According to the Appellants, such engagement was neither against a sanctioned post nor through a regular recruitment process. Respondent No.1 had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)

No.18477 of 2017 seeking consideration of his claim for regularisation. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority, by order dated 04.04.2018, rejected the claim on the ground that he had been engaged after the cut- off date prescribed under the relevant policy. Assailing the said rejection, Respondent No.1 filed W.P.(C) No.19549 of 2019, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to regularise his services upon completion of ten years together with consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present Intra-Court appeal.

4. The principal submission advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, placing reliance upon Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2026 INSC 379, is that Respondent No.1 was not initially engaged against a sanctioned post and, therefore, could not have been granted the relief of regularisation. Though the said objection appears plausible in the abstract, it cannot be accepted divorced from the peculiar facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 entered service in the year 1993 and has continued to serve for more than thirty-three years. Throughout this extended period, the authorities have availed his services in different capacities, without any allegation of misconduct, inefficiency or adverse service record. In such circumstances, where the employer itself has continuously utilised the services of an employee for decades in relation to recurring public functions, the technical plea regarding

absence of sanctioned post loses much of its force and cannot be permitted to defeat an equitable claim at this belated stage.

5. In Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 998, relying upon the earlier decisions in Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1,the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the constitutional obligation of the State as a model employer and deprecated the continued extraction of regular labour under temporary arrangements. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:

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 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 a constitutional 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.

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 Judgement.

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.

6. The ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the present case. If the nature of work justified continuous utilisation of Respondent No.1 for decades together, the employer cannot now rely solely upon defects in the initial mode of engagement, particularly when the necessity of such service stood established over time.

7. The objection regarding discontinuity or break in service is equally without substance. The materials on record indicate that upon cessation of town bus operations, Respondent No.1 was retained and deployed in other wings, including as Tax Collector. Mere change in duties or transition from one local/governmental establishment to another, while remaining in public service, cannot be construed as an actual break in service. Continuity must be assessed in substance and not by formal description.

8. In Prem Chand and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 394, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that artificial or notional breaks cannot be relied upon to deny regularisation where the employee was repeatedly re-engaged and continued to discharge duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. The Court observed as follows:

"16. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellants are entitled to the relief of regularization of their services.

17. At the outset, it must be noted that it is not the case of the Respondents that the Appellants do not possess the requisite

qualifications for the post in question or that the requisite vacancies are unavailable. It is also an admitted fact that the appointments were made against existing vacancies and not against supernumerary or surplus posts created artificially.

18. The core question that falls for consideration is whether the Appellants are covered under the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003, 15.12.2006 and 18.03.2011 issued by the State of Punjab for regularization of ad hoc employees. It is not disputed that the Appellants were appointed before 13.06.1996. The Respondents have sought to exclude the Appellants solely on the ground that their service tenures contained breaks ranging from 5 to 187 days. Therefore, it has been argued that their engagements were not continuous, making them ineligible under the policy. Furthermore, it has been argued that they are also ineligible under the policy dated 18.03.2011 as the Appellants were no longer in service when it came into force.

19. We are unable to agree with this reasoning as it has come on record that a large number of similarly placed employees have been regularized in various departments of the State Government in view of the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003 and15.12.2006 in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their service as in the case of the present Appellants. The details of as many as 46 ad hoc employees who were given the benefit of the policies have been brought forward who had breaks ranging from a period of 64 to 334 days i.e. periods longer than that in the case of the Appellants. This fact has not been disputed by the Respondents. Therefore, a case for parity is made out as the Appellants have service record with breaks ranging from merely 5 to 187 days. The State cannot selectively deny the application of the policy to the Appellants, who are identically situated with these persons, with no cogent justification.

20. Moreover, the breaks in service relied upon by the Respondents to deny regularization are, on a closer examination, artificial in nature. The Appellants were consistently re-engaged, save for short breaks, and continued to discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the appointing authorities on the same posts. The breaks do not reflect any genuine abandonment of service or voluntary cessation of employment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the long service of the Appellants cannot be disregarded in lieu of artificial breaks and by leveling the initial employment as ad hoc."

9. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court is of the considered view that any notional break, if at all existing in the service career of Respondent No.1, deserves to be ignored. There is nothing on record to indicate abandonment of service or voluntary cessation. On the contrary, the continuity of engagement over the years unmistakably demonstrates that the authorities themselves treated his services as necessary and continuing.

10. That apart, the learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that similarly situated employees had been extended benefits of regularisation. The State is expected to act fairly and consistently. Selective invocation of technical pleas against one employee, after extracting service for more than three decades, would go against the constitutional mandate of equality.

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds itself in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.19549 of 2019. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity, legal infirmity or jurisdictional error so as to call for appellate interference.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Consequently, all pending I.As., if any, shall stand disposed of.


                                                                                 (Chittaranjan Dash)
                                                                                       Judge


                                                                                (Krishna Shripad Dixit)
                                                                                       Judge


Digitally Signed     Bijay/Sarbani

Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2026 17:45:39