[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Patent Of Patna High Court Read With ... vs Ranjan Kumar Rout on 21 January, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                      W.A No.97 of 2025

           In the matter of an appeal under Section-10 of the Letters
           Patent of Patna High Court read with Article-4 the Orissa
           High Court Rules, 1948 from a common order dated
           20.12.2023 passed by the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.15096
           of 2014.
                                       ----
           State of Odisha & Ors.              ....         Appellants
                                    -versus-

           Ranjan Kumar Rout                                 ....            Respondent

                          Advocates Appeared in this case

                     For Appellants        -          Mr. S.K. Jee, A.G.A.

                     For Respondent -                 Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

                                                ---
    CORAM :
    MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
    MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Date of Hearing & Judgment: 21.01.2026
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               --
Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.(C) No.15096 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the

present respondent was allowed and the Appellants were

directed to consider and grant the benefit of regularisation in

favour of the writ petitioner, holding that the rejection of his

claim for regularisation was unsustainable in law.

2. In view of the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by this Court,

it is noted that pursuant to the conditional order earlier passed,

the appellants-State have deposited the cost of ₹1,00,000/- with

the Odisha State Legal Services Authority (OSLSA). The said

compliance having been made, and the cause shown by the

appellants for the delay in preferring the writ appeal is accepted.

Consequently, the delay of 354 days in filing the writ appeal vide

I.A. No.101 of 2025 stands condoned, and the appeal is taken up

for consideration on merits.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused

the case record.

4. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the respondent

was initially engaged as a Data Entry Operator under the DRDA,

Jagatsinghpur, in the year 1999-2000 and continued to discharge

his duties uninterruptedly for 26 years. His services were availed

continuously without the intervention of any interim order of a

court or tribunal. The record further discloses that the respondent

was paid from time to time for the work performed by him and

his engagement was not a sporadic or casual arrangement in the

true sense, but one dictated by the perennial requirement of the

establishment.

5. The learned Single Judge, upon a detailed examination of

the pleadings and the law on the subject, came to a categorical

finding that the rejection of the respondent's claim for

regularisation was primarily founded on two grounds, namely,

that his initial engagement was irregular and that there was no

sanctioned post. It was further held that the authorities could not

supplement the reasons contained in the impugned order by way

of counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the

ratio of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC

1; State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247; Nihal

Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 65;

Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2018) 13 SCC 432, and other binding precedents, which clearly

hold that while illegal appointments cannot be regularised,

irregular appointments of long-standing nature, where

employees have worked for ten years or more against available

work requirements and without the protection of court orders,

deserve consideration as a one-time measure. The impugned

judgment records a clear finding that the respondent's

engagement was, at best, irregular and not illegal, and that the

authorities themselves continued to exploit his services for years

together without undertaking the mandated regularisation

exercise.

6. The contention raised by the appellants that there was no

sanctioned post available also does not impress this Court. The

very fact that the respondent was continuously engaged for data

entry work over a long period belies the plea that no work or no

post existed. As consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

the State cannot take advantage of its own wrong by pleading

absence of sanctioned posts after having extracted work for years

together on exploitative terms.

7. Equally untenable is the argument that regularisation

would run contrary to the constitutional scheme under Articles 14

and 16. The law post-Umadevi (supra) has been sufficiently

clarified in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Others,

reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, to the effect that fairness,

non-arbitrariness, and prevention of exploitation are also facets of

constitutional governance, and the one-time regularisation

exercise contemplated therein is meant precisely to balance these

competing concerns, which is reproduced as below:

"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."

8. Upon an independent reappraisal of the entire material on

record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned

Single Judge has neither misdirected himself in law nor

committed any error of jurisdiction warranting interference in

intra-court appellate jurisdiction. The findings recorded are well-

reasoned, supported by binding precedent, and based on

admitted facts.

9. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. The

judgment and order dated 20.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.15096

of 2014 are hereby affirmed. The directions issued therein shall be

complied with by the appellants-State authorities within the time

stipulated by the learned Single Judge. There shall be no order as