[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Anr vs Jaya Krushna Senapati & on 19 January, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No. 1102 of 2025
F
(An Appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948,
read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High
Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule-6 of Chapter-III of the Rules
R
of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, 1948 challenging the order
dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.4827 of 2020)
State of Odisha and Anr. .... Appellants
Mr. Saroj Kumar Jee, A.G.A.
-versus-
Jaya Krushna Senapati & .... Respondents
others
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 19.01.2026
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. This intra-Court Appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.4827 of 2020, whereby the writ petition
filed by the present Respondent No.1 was allowed and the
Appellants were directed to regularise his services at par
with one Surendra Nath Sahoo, with consequential benefits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 at length and have
carefully perused the materials available on record.
3. The material facts are not in serious dispute.
Respondent No.1 was engaged on 12.08.1994 as a Work
Sarkar on Daily Labour Roll (DLR) basis under the Khurda
Municipality. He continued to discharge his duties
uninterruptedly for more than two decades. During this
period, his services were admittedly utilised by the
Municipality, and he was entrusted with the work attached
to the post in question. It is also borne out from the record
that another employee, namely, Surendra Nath Sahoo, whose
name appeared in the same list of DLR employees, was
granted the benefit of regularisation pursuant to judicial
directions. The grievance of Respondent No.1 was that
despite long and continuous service and despite being
similarly circumstanced with the said Surendra Nath Sahoo,
he was denied regularisation. His case was recommended by
the Municipality, and an affidavit seeking regularisation was
filed in the year 2024. However, no positive decision was
taken, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The learned
Single Judge, upon considering the factual matrix and the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, granted relief
to the petitioner.
4. The principal contentions urged on behalf of the State
in the present appeal are threefold. Firstly, it is contended
that at the time of initial engagement of Respondent No.1 in
the year 1994, there was no sanctioned post against which he
could have been appointed, and therefore his engagement
was not merely irregular but illegal. Secondly, it is urged that
the post of Work Sarkar stood abolished with effect from
20.06.2015, and in the absence of an existing post, no direction
for regularisation could have been issued. Thirdly, it is
argued that although an affidavit was filed in the year 2024
seeking regularisation, the same could not be acceded to
since no sanctioned post was available, and hence the learned
Single Judge erred in issuing a positive direction instead of,
at best, directing consideration of the case.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 supported the
impugned judgment by contending that notwithstanding the
absence of a sanctioned post, the respondent has rendered
long and continuous service for more than two decades, has
crossed the age of 59 years and is on the verge of
superannuation. It was further urged that his denial of
regularisation at this stage would cause grave prejudice.
6. The aforesaid submissions, though appealing at first
blush, cannot be accepted in view of the settled position of
law. In Jaggo vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying
on the earlier precedents including Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and
State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, has held
as follows:
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it
is regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate
claims of long-serving employees. This judgment
aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and
"irregular" appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even
in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in
Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment
of cases where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable services
over decades.
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."
7. Having considered the record and the submissions
advanced, this Court finds no merit in the writ appeal. The
learned Single Judge has taken note of the undisputed fact
that Respondent No.1 had rendered long, continuous service
for more than twenty years and that his services were utilised
by the State instrumentalities throughout this period. More
importantly, the plea of hostile discrimination was
substantiated by the fact that a similarly situated employee,
namely, Surendra Nath Sahoo, was extended the benefit of
regularisation.
The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (Supra) is
apposite. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that where
the State continues to take work from an employee for years
together, taking advantage of his weak bargaining power, it
cannot subsequently turn around and deny equitable relief
solely on technical pleas, particularly when parity with
similarly situated employees is demonstrably established.
The decision underscores that fairness and non-arbitrariness
remain guiding principles even in matters concerning
irregular appointments.
8. The contentions relating to absence of a sanctioned
post at the inception and abolition of the post, though
relevant, cannot be examined in isolation. The State cannot be
permitted to approbate and reprobate having utilised the
services of Respondent No.1 for decades and having
regularised another employee from the same pool, it cannot
deny similar treatment to the respondent on the eve of his
superannuation. The filing of the affidavit in 2024 seeking
regularisation only reinforces the fact that the claim was alive
and under consideration, and the denial thereof was not
based on any fresh or distinguishing material.
9. Applying the ratio of Jaggo (Supra) to the facts at
hand, this Court is of the considered view that the State,
having extracted continuous service from the respondent for
over two decades, cannot be permitted to resile behind
technical objections of non-sanctioned post or subsequent
abolition of the post, particularly when a similarly situated
employee has been granted regularisation. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has unequivocally held that prolonged
engagement of an employee, coupled with the State's
conscious utilisation of his services, creates a legitimate
expectation which cannot be defeated by taking shelter under
procedural or administrative infirmities. To do so would
amount to institutionalising exploitation arising out of
unequal bargaining power, a course of action which stands
expressly deprecated in Jaggo (Supra). Denial of parity in
such circumstances would not only offend the principles of
fairness and non-arbitrariness, but would also undermine the
constitutional obligation of the State to act as a model
employer.
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the
impugned judgment warranting interference in intra-court
appeal. The present Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit,
stands dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Jan-2026 13:21:44
