Padmanava Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 738 Ori

Orissa High Court

Padmanava Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 29 January, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019

     Padmanava Mishra                                  ....               Petitioner

                              -versus-
     State of Odisha and Others                        ....            Opp. Parties

                          W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022

     Padmanava Mishra                                  ....               Petitioner

                              -versus-
     State of Odisha and Others                        ....            Opp. Parties

                     Advocates Appeared in this case

               For Petitioner         -         Mr. K. K. Swain, Advocate

               For Opp. Parties -               Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA

                                          ---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Date of Hearing & Judgment: 29.01.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. The present writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022 and

W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019, involving common parties,

substantially overlapping facts and interconnected issues, are

taken up together and are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019 has been filed assailing the

order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Odisha Administrative

Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No.883(C) of 2016, whereby the

claim of the Petitioner for regularisation of service and grant of

equal pay for equal work was rejected.

W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022 has been filed calling in

question the subsequent order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the

Director, Economics and Statistics, Odisha, rejecting the

Petitioner's claim for regularisation in purported compliance

with earlier directions of this Court.

3. In view of the fact that both the writ petitions pertain to the

service claim of the same Petitioner and challenge successive

orders passed at different stages, they are disposed of together

by this common judgment.

4. The Petitioner was initially engaged on 01.03.1996 as a

Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper in the office of the District Statistical

Officer, Khordha, against a vacant post which had been created

by the State Government earlier on 30.07.1994. Since his initial

engagement, the Petitioner continued to discharge the duties

attached to the said post uninterruptedly. From time to time, the

District Statistical Officer recommended his case to the higher

authorities for engagement on ad hoc or temporary basis as well

as for enhancement of remuneration. Despite long continuation

in service, the Petitioner's status was not regularised. Aggrieved

thereby, he approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by

filing O.A. No.2077(C) of 2007, which was disposed of on

20.09.2007 with a direction to pay him daily wages at the

minimum rate for the entire period of service rendered and to

allow him to continue, if there was a vacant post and a

continuous requirement of work. Alleging non-compliance of the

said order, the Petitioner thereafter initiated contempt

proceedings. Instead of implementing the Tribunal's direction,

the post of Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper was transferred by order

dated 21.01.2011 from the office of the District Statistical Officer,

Khordha to another establishment. The Petitioner challenged the

said order by filing O.A. No.444(C) of 2011, which, upon

abolition of the Tribunal, stood transferred to this Court and was

renumbered as WPC (OAC) No.444 of 2011. By order dated

09.02.2022, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing

the authorities to consider the Petitioner's case for regularisation

in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, and Amarkant Rai

vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265.

In the meantime, the Petitioner had again approached the

Tribunal by filing O.A. No.883(C) of 2016 seeking regularisation

of service and equal pay for equal work. The said application

came to be dismissed by order dated 28.06.2019, holding that the

Petitioner was a part-time sweeper and not engaged against a

sanctioned post. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner filed

W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019, which is one of the writ petitions

under consideration.

Pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by this

Court in WPC (OAC) No.444 of 2011, the Petitioner submitted

representations to the competent authorities seeking

regularisation. During the pendency of such consideration, a

policy decision was taken on 07.04.2022 not to engage

Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper on contractual basis in District

Planning and Monitoring Units and to outsource such work.

Apprehending disengagement, the Petitioner approached this

Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9962 of 2022, which was disposed of

on 21.04.2022 with a direction to consider his case in terms of the

earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Subsequently, by order dated 27.07.2022, the Director,

Economics and Statistics, Odisha rejected the Petitioner's claim

for regularisation, holding that his case was not covered by the

decisions relied upon by this Court. The said order is the subject

matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022. During the

pendency of W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022, this Court, by interim

order dated 28.10.2022 passed in I.A. No.14469 of 2022, directed

that the Petitioner shall not be disengaged from service. It is the

case of the Petitioner that despite the said interim protection, he

was subsequently disengaged from service.

At a later stage, the matter was referred to mediation;

however, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties.

Consequently, W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019, challenging the order

dated 28.06.2019, and W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022, challenging the

order dated 27.07.2022, have been placed before this Court for

final adjudication and are being considered together by this

common judgment.

5. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that

the Petitioner has rendered uninterrupted service for more than

two decades. It is contended that the nature of duties discharged

by the Petitioner was continuous and perennial, and his

engagement was never casual or intermittent. Learned counsel

submits that despite repeated recommendations made by the

District Statistical Officer from time to time and despite

directions issued by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal as well

as this Court, the Petitioner's service was never regularised.

Instead, successive orders were passed rejecting his claim on

erroneous grounds, particularly by treating him as a part-time

employee not engaged against a sanctioned post. It is further

contended that the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Tribunal

suffers from a patent error, inasmuch as it ignores the long

length of service rendered by the Petitioner and the availability

of sanctioned work and proceeds on an incorrect factual premise.

The subsequent order dated 27.07.2022, rejecting the Petitioner's

claim purportedly in compliance with the directions of this

Court, is assailed as mechanical and non-speaking, having failed

to properly apply the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Umadevi (3) (supra), M.L. Kesari (supra) and

Amarkanti Rai (supra). Learned counsel further submits that the

Petitioner's case is squarely covered by the recent decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024

SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & another vs. Nagar Nigam,

Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Dharam Singh vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 INSC 998, wherein

long-serving daily wage, contractual or part-time employees

discharging perennial duties have been held entitled to

protection against arbitrary disengagement and to consideration

for regularisation. It is also urged that the disengagement of the

Petitioner during the subsistence of the interim order dated

28.10.2022 passed by this Court is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

According to learned counsel, the action of the authorities

reflects a colourable exercise of power and a deliberate attempt

to defeat judicial orders. On the aforesaid grounds, learned

counsel for the Petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned

orders dated 28.06.2019 and 27.07.2022, and for issuance of

appropriate directions for regularisation of the Petitioner's

service with consequential benefits.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the State opposes the writ petitions and submits

that the Petitioner was never appointed against a regular

sanctioned post in accordance with the prescribed recruitment

rules. It is contended that the Petitioner was engaged only on a

part-time / daily wage basis and, therefore, cannot claim

regularisation as a matter of right. Learned AGA submits that

the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Odisha Administrative

Tribunal is well reasoned and does not call for any interference,

as the Tribunal has correctly held that the Petitioner was not

holding a sanctioned post and was not appointed through a

regular process of selection. It is further submitted that the

subsequent order dated 27.07.2022 was passed after due

consideration of the directions issued by this Court and in the

light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Umadevi (3) (supra) and allied decisions. According to learned

AGA, the Petitioner's case does not satisfy the conditions laid

down therein for consideration of regularisation. Learned AGA

also contends that that the policy decision of the State to

outsource such services cannot be faulted with and does not

warrant judicial interference. On the aforesaid grounds, learned

AGA prays for dismissal of both the writ petitions.

7. Having heard both the learned counsels, at the outset, it is

necessary to advert to the earlier orders passed by the Odisha

Administrative Tribunal in respect of the Petitioner. By order

dated 20.09.2007 passed in O.A. No.2077(C) of 2007, the Tribunal

directed the authorities to pay the Petitioner daily wages at the

minimum rate applicable for the post for the entire period he

had worked and further directed that he be allowed to continue

in service so long as there existed a vacant post and a continuous

requirement of work. The said order attained finality and was

acted upon by the State, which continued the Petitioner in

service and paid him minimum wages in terms of the Tribunal's

direction.

8. The continued engagement of the Petitioner pursuant to

judicial directions assumes significance while examining the

contention of the State that the Petitioner's initial entry into

service was illegal. It is well settled that an appointment made

dehors the recruitment rules cannot ordinarily be regularised.

However, in the present case, the Petitioner was not only

continued in service for decades, but such continuation was

under the express protection of judicial orders and with payment

of minimum wages as directed by the Tribunal. The State,

having implemented the said directions and having derived

continuous service from the Petitioner, cannot now be permitted

to contend that the Petitioner's engagement was wholly illegal so

as to deny him any consideration for regularisation.

9. The plea of illegality at the entry point must also be

examined in the context of the passage of time and the conduct

of the employer. Where an employee has rendered long and

uninterrupted service, not by stealth or misrepresentation, but

with the knowledge of the employer and under judicial orders,

the rigour attached to the initial mode of engagement gradually

diminishes. At a certain point, the continued acquiescence of the

employer, coupled with payment of minimum wages and

utilisation of service against a perennial requirement, erodes the

force of the argument that the engagement was void ab initio. To

hold otherwise would permit the State to approbate and

reprobate at the same time.

10. The record clearly discloses that the Petitioner has been in

continuous service since 1996, performing duties of a permanent

and perennial nature. The Tribunal itself, while directing

payment of minimum wages and continuation in service,

implicitly recognised the existence of a continuous requirement

of work. The State never chose to disengage the Petitioner

immediately after the said order; on the contrary, it retained him

in service for years thereafter. Such prolonged continuation

cannot be treated as a mere fortuitous circumstance.

11. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Jaggo vs. Union of India (supra),

the Court reiterated that where an employee has rendered long

years of service and the employer has continuously taken benefit

thereof, the State cannot deny relief solely on the ground of

irregularity at the initial stage of engagement. Emphasis was

placed on the nature of duties discharged, the length of service

rendered and the conduct of the employer, rather than on a

hyper-technical view of the mode of engagement.

This Court, in Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board

vs. Bijay Kumar Samal & Others, passed in W.A. Nos.857 of

2024 and other connected matters, has also held that when

employees are continued for long years against posts involving

perennial work and are paid minimum wages, the employer

cannot indefinitely postpone regularisation by taking shelter

under the plea of initial irregularity. The Court emphasised that

fairness in public employment is a two-way obligation and that

the State is expected to function as a model employer,

particularly where it has itself allowed such continuation for a

considerable length of time.

More recently, in Dharam Singh vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh, 2025 INSC 998, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further

strengthened the aforesaid principles, with the relevant portion

reproduced below:

" 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.

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 Judgement. 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 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."

12. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, the case of

the present Petitioner stands on a firm footing. The Petitioner has

rendered uninterrupted service since 1996, discharging duties of

a permanent and perennial nature, and has been continued in

service by the State not merely as a matter of indulgence, but

pursuant to binding judicial directions. The authorities have,

over the years, accepted the Petitioner's engagement by paying

minimum wages and by extracting continuous service from him,

thereby demonstrating clear acquiescence. At this belated stage,

the State cannot be permitted to resile from its own conduct and

deny consideration for regularisation by raising technical

objections relating to the initial mode of engagement. To do so

would be inconsistent with the principles of fairness, equity and

reasonableness governing public employment.

13. The reliance placed by the State on the decision in

Umadevi (3) (supra) is misplaced if read in isolation. The

Constitution Bench itself carved out an exception in respect of

employees who had worked for long periods against sanctioned

posts and whose engagement was not tainted by fraud or

misrepresentation. The subsequent decision in M.L. Kesari

(supra) clarified that the object of Umadevi (3) (supra) was not to

perpetuate injustice to long-serving employees who had been

allowed to continue by the State itself.

14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is

of the considered view that the impugned orders dated

28.06.2019 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A.

No.883(C) of 2016 and dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Director,

Economics and Statistics, Odisha, cannot be sustained. Both

orders proceed on an unduly restrictive and technical

appreciation of the Petitioner's engagement, without duly

accounting for the Petitioner's uninterrupted service since 1996,

the perennial nature of the duties discharged by him, the

continuous acquiescence of the employer, and the binding

directions earlier issued by the Tribunal and this Court.

15. Having regard to the long years of service rendered by the

Petitioner, the nature of work performed, and in the light of the

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo

(supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and other decisions, this Court is

satisfied that the Petitioner is entitled to protection of service and

to consideration for regularisation. The plea of the State

imputing illegality at the initial stage of engagement cannot be

accepted at this belated stage, particularly when the State itself

has continued the Petitioner and paid him minimum wages

pursuant to judicial directions.

16. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.06.2019 and

27.07.2022 are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed

to regularise the service of the Petitioner against an appropriate

post commensurate with the duties he has been discharging, and

to do so within a period of two months from the date of receipt

of this judgment. Until such regularisation is effected, the

Petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service without

interruption.

17. Needless to observe, the Petitioner shall be entitled to all

consequential service benefits from the date of regularisation, in

accordance with law.

18. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani

Designation: Junior Stenographer

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 04-Feb-2026 12:26:53