[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sarat Chandra Patra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 29 January, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. NO.3190 OF 2024
In the matter of an appeal under clause-10 of the letters patent of
Patna High Court read with Article-4 of the Orissa High Court
Order, 1948 from the Common Order dated 29.10.2024 passed in
W.P.(C) No.15097 of 2014.
--------------
Sarat Chandra Patra .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellant - M/s. Sanjib Mohanty and B. Biswal,
Advocates
For Respondents - Mr. S.B. Mohanty
Addl. Govt. Advocate
-----------
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 29.01.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
This Intra-Court Appeal filed by the employee is directed against
a Common Order dated 29.10.2024, whereby his W.P.(C) No.15097 of
2014 has been negatived relaying upon certain decisions of the Apex
Court.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant-employee vehemently argues
that his client has been in service against a sanctioned post on daily
wage basis w.e.f. 14.12.2000; the wages came to be enhanced
periodically and that there is absolutely no complaint whatsoever about
the performance of the Appellant. He further submits that the decisions
relied upon in structuring the impugned order are not much relevant in
view of march of law relating to regularization beginning from State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 to Jaggo v. Union of India,
2024 INSC 1034 and then to Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025
INSC 998. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the appeal.
3. Learned AGA vehemently opposes the appeal making submission
in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and
the reasons on which it has been structured. He tells us that there being
no sanctioned post, learned Single Judge is more than justified in having
a view that Courts cannot arrogate to themselves the power to create
posts. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ appeal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for
the following reasons:
4.1. Law of regularization in public service is never static. It has
moved from The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate v. State of
Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 883 to Umadevi supra and then to Jaggo
supra, which has been reiterated broadly in Dharam Singh supra. If the
entry point is not illegal, the service rendered would be irregular and not
illegal. If such irregular service is rendered against a sanctioned post,
then there is an absolute obligation to regularize the same, if the
employee has put in a long service at least not less than one decade. If
there is no such sanctioned post, the long service itself indicates
requirement of such services and therefore, the State may have to create
supernumerary posts, if need be. However, as rightly contended by
learned counsel for the Appellant, we need not travel so far, inasmuch as
record reveals that the Appellant has been working against a sanctioned
post i.e., Watchman-cum-Sweeper. This aspect of the matter has been
lost sight of by the learned Single Judge. That apart, the hallmark
decision of Apex Court in Jaggo supra came only in December, 2024
i.e., after the passing of impugned order.
4.2. The submission of learned AGA that the decision of the learned
Single Judge is well structured because it internalizes Apex Court
decision in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 and
therefore, this Court may not interfere in the matter, is bit difficult to
countenance. That was a case essentially relating to power of the State
to create posts. In the light of Jaggo supra and Dharam Singh supra
that question would pale into insignificance. In Dharam Singh supra,
the Apex Court at Para 19 & (i) has observed as under:
"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 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."
In the above circumstances, this Writ Appeal succeeds; the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set at naught; Appellant's
W.P.(C) No.15097 of 2014 having been allowed, a Writ of Mandamus
issues to Respondents to grant or cause regularization of services of the
Appellant with effect from the date he completed 10 years of
uninterrupted services and grant all consequential benefits to him within
an outer limit of three months without giving scope for contempt
proceedings.
Costs made easy.
Web copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 29th day of January 2026 /Anisha
