[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Gobinda Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And on 15 January, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.889 of 2026
Gobinda Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 15.01.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. On the consent of the learned counsels appearing of
the parties, the matter was finally taken up at the stage of
fresh admission and disposed of.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordship's be
graciously pleased to pass following relief(s);-
(i) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to
allow the Writ petition,
(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the
impugned order of rejection dtd. 26.11.2025 under
Annexure-4 with further directing the 0pp. Party
// 2 //
authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner in
the regular available Class-IV/Group-D vacant post
under the administrative control of 0pp. party no-3 & 4
by further allowing him to continue in his service
keeping in view of his long continuance of more than
26 years as Night Watchman on DLR basis so also
keeping in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
passed in the case of "Jaggo -Vs. Union of India",
"Shripal -Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad" and "Dh8ram
Singh -Vs. State of U.P" so also the decision of this
Hon'ble Court in several similar nature of cases with
all consequential serve & financial benefits within a
time bound period for the interest of justice.
(iii) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to
pass any other Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) as this
Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper."
5. It is contended that pursuant to the earlier order
passed by this Court on 04.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.1498 of
2025, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of
regularisation has been rejected vide the impugned order
dated 26.11.2025 under Annexure-4.
5.1. It is contended that even though petitioner is
continuing as DLR in terms of order dated 25.06.1999 so
issued under Annexure-1 and in the meantime he has
already completed more than 26 years of continuous
engagement but his claim has been rejected without
following the direction contained in order dated
04.02.2025 of this Court.
5.2. It is further contended that in view of the recent
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo
vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826;
Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors.
vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of
// 3 //
2018, the ground on which petitioner's claim has been
rejected is no more sustainable.
5.3. View expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as
follows:-
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers'
rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of
the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious
employment arrangements, often characterized by lack
of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers
and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of
fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment
practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse
of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but
also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public
trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair
treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational
Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to
provide stable employment and to observe obligations
concerning employment stability and social security. It
emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading
role in promoting employment security, particularly in
contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate
long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the
case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a
pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating
the consequences of misclassifying employees to
circumvent
providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified
certain workers as independent contractors, thereby
denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth
// 4 //
Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact,
common-law employees and were entitled to the same
benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that
large Corporations have increasingly adopted the
practice of hiring temporary employees or independent
contractors as a means of avoiding payment of
employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This
judgment underscores the principle that the nature of
the work performed, rather than the label assigned to
the worker, should determine employment status and
the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the
judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and
ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly
become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations
owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring,
and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled
as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural
justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity,
regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often
find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set
of exploited workers with another. This practice not only
// 5 //
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social
security subjects them and their families to undue hardship,
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative
for government departments to lead by example in providing fair
and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis
for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to
the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international
labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal
challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair
employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards
and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,
thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices
in the country."
5.4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Para-
14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:-
"14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a
shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for
years without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment.
15. ....... Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the
legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended
period.
18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a
fair and transparent process for regularizing the
// 6 //
Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of
reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent
posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not
impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if
such requirements were never applied to the Appellant
Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in
the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for
such duties exist or are required, the Respondent
Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative
processes to ensure these longtime employees are not
indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory
and equitable norms."
5.5. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of
Jaggo and Shripal, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19 &
20 has held as follows:
"13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and
Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a
convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to
sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is
inherently perennial. The Commission's further
contention that the appellants are not "full-time"
employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders
also does not advance their case. That interim protection
was granted precisely because of the long history of
engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the
State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not
exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a
proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also
declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not
specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated
25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ
petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as
the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during
pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record
by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe
that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality
of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in
1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than
dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The
Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error
by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the
principal challenge or the intervening material. The
// 7 //
approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a
mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy" while
ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's
refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and
long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the
impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained.
The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and
25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the Commission's
proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV
posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work,
are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
xxx xxx xxx
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 an institutional
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
// 8 //
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 Judgment.
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.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such
matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
"reconsiderations," and administrative drift which
further prolongs the insecurity for those who have
already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore,
we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest
on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of
clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance
.As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a
// 9 //
higher standard and therefore it must organise its
perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a
budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial
directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these
obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a
conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and
dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we
have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary
posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits,
and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a
pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to
reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency
in administration are not matters of grace, but
obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India."
5.6. It is accordingly contended that the matter be
remitted to Opp. Party No.3 to take a fresh decision on
the petitioner's claim taking into account the decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal
and Dharam Singh so cited (supra).
6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has no serious
objection to the course of action proposed by the leaned
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
considering the submissions made and while remitting
the matter to Opp. Party No.3, this Court directs the said
Opp. Party to take a fresh decision on the claim of the
petitioner taking into account the decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam
Singh so cited (supra), within a period of 3 (three)
months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is
permitted to provide a copy of this order along with
citations of the above noted 3 (three) judgments before
// 10 //
O.P. No.3 for compliance. Till a decision is taken, no
coercive action be taken against the petitioner.
8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
