[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Shib Sankar Bhanja And Others on 21 January, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 561 of 2025
State of Odisha .... Appellant
Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA
-versus-
Shib Sankar Bhanja and Others .... Respondents
Mr. Atul Tripathy, Advocate
For R Nos.1 & 2
Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA
For R. Nos.3 & 4
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 21.01.2026
01. W.A. No. 561 of 2025 & I.A. No.1365 of 2025
The Appeal has been filed after a short delay of 25 days.
An application supported by affidavit being I.A. No.1365 of
2025 accompanies the Appeal Memo seeking condonation of
the said delay.
2. The delay is minimal and the explanation offered is
plausible. No prejudice would be caused to the opposite side, if
the delay is condoned, as the matter shall be heard on merits.
In the above circumstances, the I.A. is allowed and the
delay is condoned.
3. This Appeal by the State calls in question a learned
Single Judge's order dated 09.01.2025, whereby the
Respondents' W.P.(C) No.1906 of 2022 having been favoured
the relief of regularization has been accorded to them with the
following words:
"In the instant case, admittedly nothing has been produced on
record to reveal anything that the services of the Petitioners
have been dispensed with for such period in a particular year,
which otherwise implied that the services of the Petitioners
have been utilized, rather exploited, regularly by keeping them
in temporary status as DLR employees. Thus, as stated in
forgoing paragraph, and the principles settled in the case of
Jagoo (supra), the Opposite Parties are directed to regularize
the services of the Petitioners by creating required posts, if
necessary, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order."
4. Learned AGA Mr. Panda in his usual vehemence argues
that when the entry point of service itself is polluted in the
absence of any selection process or the like, the Constitution
Bench decision in case of State of Karnataka v. Umadev,
(2006) 4 SCC 1 would come in the way of regularizing the
services of the respondents and this aspect having not been
adverted to by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order has
error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference
of this Court.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents, who
belong to the lower rung of service, resists the Appeal with
equal vehemence contending that the learned Single Judge has
structured his impugned order on the next line of rulings,
namely, Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, which
takes care of the ratio laid down in Umadevi supra also and
therefore, interference is not warranted, when his clients have
already put in a long and unblemished service of 26 years.
6. 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.
7. At Paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of the impugned order, it has been
observed as under:
"4. As seen from the record and the pleadings made by
the Petitioners in the writ petition as well as the reply made
in the counter affidavits, their uninterrupted continuance in
service till date remains undisputed. No adverse report with
regard to performance of their duties has ever been
reported. Secondly, their job requirements are found
indispensable and integral to the functions of the
Municipality.
5. The most important noticeable factor is that, both the
vehicles, i.e. Road Roller and Tractor with Trolly-Tanker,
have been owned by the Municipality for smoothening its
function in better way. So when the vehicles have been
owned by the Municipality, it is obvious on the part of the
Municipality to have its regular drivers. But instead of the
same, the services of the Petitioners have been utilized for
more than 26 years in temporary status as DLRs. Such
course adopted by the Municipality is complete misuse of
services of employees engaged for the work which is
admittedly essential, recurring and integral to the functions
of the institution.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagoo vs.
Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826,
while dealing with similar issues relating to regularization
of services of Safaiwali and Housekeepers, have observed
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 elite
the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that
no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's
explicit acknowledgement 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."
We are in full agreement with the contents of this
paragraphs.
In the above circumstances, Writ Appeal being devoid of
merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having
been made easy. Order of the learned Single Judge to be
implemented within a period of eight weeks and compliance
report to be filed with the Registrar General of this Court.
Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 22-Jan-2026 14:00:37
