[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Another vs Pramod Kumar Padhi And on 9 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1829 OF 2025
State of Odisha and another .... Appellants
-versus-
Pramod Kumar Padhi and .... Respondents
Others
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellants - Mr. S. K. Jee, AGA
For Respondents - Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate
---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 09.03.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed by the State and
its functionaries challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.16511 of 2021,
whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the application of the
Respondents-employees and directed the Appellants to
regularise the contractual engagement of the Respondents
under the 2013 Rules with effect from 01.07.2016 against the
vacant posts from the date such posts were created by the
Government of Odisha, along with all consequential service
and financial benefits, within a period of eight weeks.
2. The background facts of the case are that the State of
Odisha established Odisha Bhawan at Mumbai, operated by the
Home Department, Government of Odisha, in the year 2010.
For its functioning, the Government of Odisha, vide Letter
No.4416 dated 02.02.2010, requested the Principal, Institute of
Hotel Management and Catering Technology, VSS Nagar,
Bhubaneswar to sponsor suitable candidates for appointment to
different posts in the said Odisha Bhawan at Mumbai. Pursuant
to such communication, several names were sponsored by the
Institute and the Additional Secretary to Government in the
Home Department issued a letter dated 05.04.2010 directing the
Respondents, along with other candidates, to appear before the
Selection Board.
Out of 35 candidates sponsored by the Institute, 17
candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for
interview and, out of those 17 candidates, 7 candidates were
selected in the interview conducted on 20.04.2010 vide Memo
No.26265 dated 16.06.2010, including Respondent No.1, who
was posted as Receptionist-in-Charge, Respondent No.2 as
Housekeeping-in-Charge and Respondent No.3 as Waiter. All
of them were appointed on a contractual basis on consolidated
remuneration. They submitted their joining reports before the
In-Charge of Odisha Bhawan. The initial period of engagement
was for six months and the same was extended from time to
time by the Home Department. The last such extension order
was issued on 07.07.2021 for a further period of six months.
Accordingly, the Respondents continued to work
uninterruptedly for more than a decade.
Thereafter, the Respondents approached the authorities
seeking regularisation of their services. In the meantime, the In-
Charge Officer of Odisha Bhawan recommended the names of
the Respondents for regularisation with effect from 01.08.2016
vide letter dated 16.06.2016, as they had been continuing in
their respective positions against substantive posts. In the
absence of any decision of the Government to close down the
establishment of Odisha Bhawan and considering the
continuing requirement of personnel for its functioning, the
regularisation of the Respondents ought to have been
considered. Their services being necessary and indispensable
for the smooth functioning of Odisha Bhawan, the benefit of
regularisation in recognition of their long years of service was
recommended.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the learned
Single Judge, the appellants have assailed the same on the
ground that the learned Single Judge has erroneously
appreciated the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1,
thereby arriving at an incorrect conclusion. It is further
contended that the respondents do not fall within the ambit of
the principles laid down in Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Keshari,
(2010) 9 SCC 247.
Reliance has also been placed upon the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91, State of
Rajasthan vs. Dayalal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 and Satya Prakash
and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 179.
4. Learned AGA appearing for the State-Appellants,
during the course of hearing, vehemently contended that the
learned Single Judge was swayed by the decision in Jaggo
(supra) and failed to properly consider the law laid down in
Umadevi (supra), as well as the other judgments relied upon by
the appellants. It was further submitted that since the
engagement of the respondents was purely temporary and
contractual in nature, they are not entitled to regularisation.
5. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants
requires to be examined in the backdrop of the settled principle
that the State, being a public employer, is expected to act as a
model employer. As emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika vs. State of Assam, (2013) 2
SCC 516, the State must act with fairness, transparency and
high ethical standards and ought not to resort to technical pleas
that operate to the detriment of employees who have served it
for long periods. The doctrine of the State as a model employer
obligates it to ensure fairness and equity towards those who
have rendered prolonged service to the establishment.
6. From the materials available on record, it is evident that
the respondents have rendered services for more than a decade
on a contractual basis against regular posts. The records further
reveal that the State itself had requested the Institute of Hotel
Management and Catering Technology to sponsor suitable
candidates and, pursuant thereto, a selection process was
undertaken in which the respondents were selected and
engaged at Odisha Bhawan, established in the year 2010. Their
engagement, therefore, cannot be said to be dehors any
procedure. Since the inception of Odisha Bhawan, the
respondents have continuously discharged their duties in their
respective capacities and there is no adverse material on record
against them during the entire period of service.
7. The establishment of Odisha Bhawan at Mumbai
continues to function in catering to the requirements of the
State and nothing has been placed before this Court to
demonstrate any infirmity in the impugned judgment, except
reliance upon certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view of the principles laid down in Jaggo (supra), M.L.
Keshari (supra) and Bhola Nath vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 95, which consider the position of
employees who have rendered long years of service without
regularisation, the submissions advanced by the appellants do
not persuade this Court to take a view different from that taken
by the learned Single Judge.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the
learned Single Judge has undertaken a detailed consideration of
the rival contentions of the parties, as well as the manner in
which the respondents were engaged and continued in service.
The conclusions arrived at therein are in consonance with the
principles laid down in the decisions referred to above and,
therefore, do not warrant any further elaboration by this Court.
9. We are, therefore, in broad agreement with the reasons
assigned by the learned Single Judge in favour of the
respondents for their regularisation. The respondents have
rendered services for more than a decade after having
undergone a process of selection and interview against
substantive posts, though their engagement was described as
contractual in nature. The recommendation made by the
authorities of Odisha Bhawan for their regularisation against
existing vacancies further lends support to their claim.
10. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
AKPradhan
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 13-Mar-2026 14:30:11
