[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Balabhadra Bhujabal vs State Of Odrissa & Others .... Opposite ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27607 of 2019
Balabhadra Bhujabal .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odrissa & others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. B.K. Sahoo, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
05.02.2026
Order No.
09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a
direction to the opposite parties to absorb him for a day in the
regular establishment and in existing Class-III vacant post
before the date of superannuation i.e. 30th November, 2019 for
the purpose of regularization taking into account his forty years
of service under the J.C. Establishment with such regularization
of his juniors in view of the Government's decision as per
Annexures-6 and 7 and for similar benefits having been
extended to others as per Annexure-8 and as such, to quash the
order dated 30th November, 2019 as at Annexure-13.
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner joined in service on 12th May,
1976 but such entry was wrongly reflected as 22nd May, 1995
but it was corrected as per the decision of the Core Group
Committee meeting held on 13th July, 2015. The further
submission is that the petitioner completed more than forty
years of service as a job contract employee in the existing
vacant post and in the meantime, his juniors and many others
were absorbed in regular establishment in pursuance of the
Apex Court's decision in Civil Appeal No.407 of 1993 and
subsequent orders/instructions/resolution dated 16th March,
2005, 12th September, 2013 and 8th October, 2013 but he has
been discriminated due to such wrong recording of his date of
entry into service in the gradation list. It is contended that in
view of the order in W.P.(C) No. 20721 of 2019 as at
Annexure-12, the grievance of the petitioner was directed to be
considered by this Court but it has resulted in passing of the
impugned order at Annexure-13. The further contention is that
in one of such cases, regularization in service has been directed
by the Government and while claiming so, the order dated 30th
November, 2019 as at Annexure-14 is placed reliance on.
Under the above circumstances, it is ultimately contended that
the petitioner deserves similar treatment but it has been denied
vide Annexure-13.
4. Ms. Sahoo, learned AGA for the State refers to the
counter affidavits of opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and opposite
party Nos.4 & 5 and would submit that the petitioner is not
entitled to any such relief, as has been demanded. Referring to
Para 4 & 8 of the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos.1 and
2, it is further submitted that the petitioner at the time of joining
in the year 1976 was a minor aged about 16 years and it was
revealed from his date of birth mentioned in the High School
Certificate upon a scrutiny. The further submission is that in
view of the fact the petitioner joined in 1995, such
regularization is not permissible in view of the Finance
Department Resolution dated 15th May, 1997 excluding the job
contract employees and therefore, the authority concerned did
not err, while passing the impugned order i.e. Annexure-13.
5. Perused the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.
6. A decision of this Court in the case of Union of India
and others Vrs. Kalpana Nayak in W.P.(C) No. 5592 of 2019
decided on 12th January, 2026 is cited at the Bar and therein,
the challenge to the decision of the Tribunal was not
entertained, since it was claimed that the opposite party therein
was a minor at the time of engagement. In fact, a copy of the
order of the Government in Department of School & Mass
Education Department as at Annexure-16 to the rejoinder
affidavit is referred to by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for
the petitioner to submit that on any such ground alleging
minority, the petitioner's regularization cannot be denied,
especially, when in a similarly situated case, the same has been
allowed. From the said office order is made to reveal that in an
identical case, it has been held that the appointment order with
the service rendered prior to attaining the age of 18 years shall
not be taken into account as per the provisions of the Odisha
Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefits
Rules, 1981. By placing reliance on the said order, Mr.
Mohapatra learned counsel submits that the case of the
petitioner is on equal footing and hence, his service rendered
after attaining 18 years of age should have been counted by the
Government, while considering his regularization.
7. Regard being had to the above facts and pleadings on
record and the fact that one of the employees, who was in job
contract has been allowed regularization with pension in view
of Annexure-14 pursuant to the direction of this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 24043 of 2017 and that the petitioner did join in
1976 duly corrected with regard to the date of entry on the
decision of the Core Group Committee but such correction
could not be carried out in the Gradation List, this Court is of
the conclusion that the same should not have been ignored and
instead the petitioner ought to have been regularized a day
before his superannuation with orders upon creation of a
supernumerary post and therefore, the impugned decision as
per Annexure-13 cannot be sustained in law.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 30th November,
2019 as at Annexure-13 of opposite party No.1 is hereby set
aside with a direction for him to consider regularization of the
petitioner a day before the date of his superannuation i.e. on
30th November, 2019 with the creation of a supernumerary post
and thereafter to allow pension and other retiral dues in his
favour upon such regularization excluding the period, till he
attained 18 years of age since the date of entry into service is
12th May, 1976 and in compliance thereof, to ensure
disbursement of all such dues in his favour at the earliest
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
11. A copy of this order be supplied to Ms. Sahoo, learned
AGA for the State for its onward intimation to opposite party
No.1 and early compliance.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Balaram
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Feb-2026 18:05:03
