The Managing Director vs Prashes Kumar Das & Others on 10 February, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   W.A. No.719 of 2025

                 The Managing Director, OSIC Ltd.,       ....     Appellants
                 Industrial Estate, Cuttack & Another
                                                   Mr. B. K. Dash, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Prashes Kumar Das & Others              .... Respondents
                                                        Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
                           CORAM:
                           JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
                           JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

                                          ORDER

Order No.                                10.02.2026
   04.

This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the learned Single Judge's order dated 04. 09.2024, whereby Respondents' W.P.(C) No.9309 of 2024 having been favoured, the following relief has been granted:

"10. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned decision order under Annexure-4 is hereby set aside with a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.2 to ensure regularization of services of the petitioners receiving concurrence of the Board of Directors and to complete the entire exercise as soon as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently argues that the impugned judgment runs counter to the Umadevi's jurisprudence; more or less in a similar matter in SLP(C) No.24226 of 2022 between Vice Chairman and another v. Manoj Patra and others, the

Apex Court is examining as to the legality of directing regularization in the absence of permanent sanctioned post and therefore, matter requires deeper examination. He also draws our attention to the break in service, which eventually had driven the Respondent-employees to the Court more than once earlier. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ appeal by voiding the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employees opposes the appeal drawing attention of the Court to the reasoning of the learned Single Judge given in order dated 22.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No.27153 of 2017, more particularly at paragraphs-15 & 16, which in turn refers to the recommendation of the Managing Director of the Appellant-Company, which is a public sector undertaking. She also presses into service the decision of Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P, 2025 INSC 998 & Bhola Nath v. The State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99. She says that learned Single Judge has perfectly reasoned the decision and therefore, interference of this Court is uncalled for.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.27153 of 2017. It is relevant to reproduce what he has observed at Paragraphs-15 & 16 of said order:

"15. On a careful analysis of the letter written by the Managing Director of the Corporation to the Government, this Court found that the Managing Director of the Corporation has recommended tire case of the Petitioner for regularization of his service, supported by sound and strong reason. One of the major reason on

which the Managing Director of the Corporation has recommended the service of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has been working in the Corporation for a long time and that the Corporation has utilized his service on regular basis keeping in view the perennial nature of work load of the Corporation. In both the letter dated 04.11.2019 as well as 28.07.2021, the Managing Director has recommended the case of the Petitioner and similarly situated other employees for regularization of their services. Letter dated 28.07.2021 attached to the Interlocutory Application under Annexure-19 reveals that in the event the service of the Petitioner is regularized against the post of Junior Assistant, no additional financial burden would be imposed on the Corporation.

16. While saying so, this Court observes that the letter of the Managing Director referred to herein above is not supported by the decision of the Board of Directors of the Opposite Party- Corporation, it is needless to mention here that the Board of Directors is the Apex body of the Corporation and as such it is required to take policy decisions. Therefore, in absence of any decision of the Board Directors of the Corporation, the official letter written by the Managing Director is baseless and accordingly the decision of the Government in not considering such letter, according to this Court, is somewhat justifiable. Keeping in view the aforesaid analysis of fact as well as the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that taking into consideration the long service rendered by the Petitioner on contractual basis for almost three decades, his service should have been regularized. However, the Corporation failed to do well to place the matter before the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Moreover, since a number of vacant posts of Junior Assistant are available to be filled up, no permission from the Government is required to fill up such post by regularizing the service of the Petitioner and similarly placed other employees, if found suitable to hold such post."

There is force in this submission of learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employees that the law relating to regularization has marched from The Dharwad Dist. P.W.D. Literate Daily wages employees v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 883 to Secretary, State of Kanataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and to Bhola Nath supra at the latest. To a great extent, the interpretation placed by learned counsel

for the Appellants on Umadevi supra is unacceptable because of the march of law.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants that identical question being debated on the floor of the Apex Court in Manoj Patra supra, is no ground for undertaking deeper examination in the matter. Merely because a question is being debated on the floor of highest arbitral tribunal of the country, there is no law which says that all Courts should await the final decision on that. It is relevant to observe that wherever the Apex Court desires that because of pendency of a particular matter, the other Courts & Tribunals should keep up their hands from expressing their views, does not find any support. The Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, AIR 2014 SC 982, while examining legality of Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had directed all the Courts in the Country not to examine the questions that were being debated before it. Such an injunction, we do not find in the decision cited in Manoj Patra supra.

We need to observe that in the 42nd Amendment the word 'Socialist' has been introduced to the Preamble of the Constitution of India. It cannot be without any significance. The principles of democratic socialism expounded in the part-IV; i.e., to minimize the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, etc. to State a few, are beneficial to the working classes and therefore, that aspect has to be borne in mind by all Constitutional Institutions while dealing with the questions of the kind raised.

In the above circumstances, appeal being unworthy of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is at the preliminary hearing stage. The Appellants are directed to implement the impugned order of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit of eight weeks without driving the poor Respondent-employees to one more legal battle.

Cost made reluctantly easy.

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Madhusmita

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK