[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Pankaj Kumar Palei And Others on 3 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. NO. 282 of 2024
In the matter of an appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order,
1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court
from the order dated 16.09.2021 passed in WP(C) No.25371 of 2021 by
the learned Single Judge of this Court.
State of Odisha and Others .... Appellants
-Versus-
Pankaj Kumar Palei and Others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellants : Saroj Kumar Jee, AGA
For Respondents : Mr. Niranjan Panda-1, Advocate
[R-1]
Mr. Manoj Kumar Panda, Advocate
[R-3]
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & Judgment :: 03.02.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
This Appeal by the State and its functionaries seeks to call in
question the learned Single Judge's order dated 16.09.2021 whereby the
following relief has been accorded to the Respondent-employee:
"The opposite parties are directed to regularize the
services of the petitioner and grant all consequential
service and financial benefits in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
two months from the date of communication of this
order."
2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants vehemently argues that
relief of the kind could not have been granted to the Respondent-
employee in the face of the Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts
(Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013. He highlights that under Rule 5
of these Rules, the post in question attracts only contractual appointment
and therefore, the question of regularization would not figure at all. He
tells us that this aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the
learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.19951 of 2020 disposed off on
09.09.2021, on the basis of which the impugned order has been structured
and therefore, interference of this Court is eminently warranted. He also
draws our attention to the application in I.A. No.785 of 2024 supported
by an affidavit praying for condonation of a long delay of 867 days.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee opposes
the Appeal contending that there were sanctioned posts and there were
vacancies; the appointment is made by the competent authority and that
his client does possess the requisite eligibility & qualification. He also
contends that in the absence of lead decision being shown erroneous, by
taking of specific plea in the Memo of Appeal, no fault can be attributed
to the said decision.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following
reasons:
4.1. Firstly, the Appeal has been filed after brooking a long delay of
876 days delay; learned counsel for the Respondent-employee is more
than justified in opposing the prayer for its condonation on the ground of
enormity of longevity of delay and absence of plausible explanation
therefor. Therefore, the application in I.A. No.785 of 2024 being devoid
of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is.
4.2. Despite rejection of the application of condonation of delay, we
undertake examination of the point canvassed at the Bar. It is not in
dispute that there were posts and there were vacancies; the competent
authority happens to be the Local Body, i.e., Municipality headed by the
Executive Officer. Learned Penal counsel appearing for the Municipality
very fairly tells us that the Executive Officer is the competent authority to
make appointment under the extant Rules. It is not the case of Appellants
that the Respondent-employee lacked eligibility & qualification when
engagement was done. Obliviously, he does not. Therefore, it cannot be
gainfully argued that an employee appointed by the competent authority,
after verification of eligibility & qualification, to the existing vacancies
against the sanctioned post, is not entitled to have his services
regularized. Even State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi would not come to aid
of Appellants, let alone the other decisions, whereby march of law has
taken, namely, Jaggo v. UOI, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 & Sripal v.
Nagar Nigam, Gajiabad decided on 31.01.2025 vide MANU/SC/0139/
2025.
4.3. Learned AGA's contention that under Rule 5(2) of 2013 Rules all
posts would attract contractual incumbency and therefore regularisation
could not have been directed, is bit difficult to countenance. Firstly, such
a contention was not taken up before the learned single Judge and no
explanation is offered before us as to why such a contention was not
taken up, either. Secondly, learned Single Judge has followed the lead
decision in WP(C) No.19951 of 2020 decided on 09.09.2021 by another
coordinate Bench. That decision is not put in challenge and therefore, it is
deemed to have been accepted with no reservation whatsoever. It is also
not the case of Appellants that the fact matrix of this case does not match
with that of the lead decision. No contra plea emerges from the Appeal
Memo. Government being a Model Employer that ordained by the
Constitution vide Bhupendra Nnath Hazarika vs. State of Assam, 2013
(2) SCC 516, it cannot be selective & choosy within a class of employees.
Even otherwise, the pleadings in the Appeal have not been structured in
such a way as would admit the plea that the lead decision itself being bad,
could not have been the basis for constructing the impugned order. The
exception pointed by the Apex Court, as to when an Appeal challenging
an order is laid without calling in question the lead judgment, has not
been established before us. Admittedly, the Respondent-employee has put
in more than a decade long service, which is spotless. If others have
already been granted regularization in terms of lead judgment, there is no
reason to show step-motherly attitude qua the Respondent-employee
herein.
4.4. We are told by the learned counsel for the Respondent-employee
that the lead judgment runs into 51 pages; it was put in challenge in Writ
Appeal No.777 of 2021 and other connected Appeals; the Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2023 repealed the
challenge and affirmed the lead judgment of learned Single Judge. Matter
did not stop here; it was carried further to the Apex Court in SLP(C)
No.17482 of 2023 and that also met the same fate vide order dated
12.11.2025.
In the above circumstances, the Appeal being devoid of merits is
liable to be rejected and accordingly it is. The impugned order of the
learned Single Judge shall be implemented within a period of two
months.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 3rd day of February, 2026/AKPradhan
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:32:25
